Tim Carney in the Post: The Ideal Number of Kids is Four (at a minimum)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good friend of mine had three kids, all of them six years apart. So, the kids have little interaction (at least the oldest and the youngest really don't) but the parents don't seem unduly stressed by having three. You trade "always having a playmate" for the kids for parental sanity.

I can’t imagine having three kids six years apart and starting over each time (at least not by choice.) I’m pregnant with my third, each spaced three years apart and it already feels like going back to the beginning when you’re just getting past the exhausting baby phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

I mean, I know this is an anonymous forum, but aren’t you embarrassed to delve into a theology and a culture that you clearly know NOTHING about?

I was raised Catholic. Confirmed and everything. Most of my family is still Catholic. One of 7 here. Go ahead and try to challenge my bona fides.

So… reread what you wrote and then ask yourself why are you writing such nonsense? You either were very poorly catechized or you are intentionally misrepresenting your family’s faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

I mean, I know this is an anonymous forum, but aren’t you embarrassed to delve into a theology and a culture that you clearly know NOTHING about?

I was raised Catholic. Confirmed and everything. Most of my family is still Catholic. One of 7 here. Go ahead and try to challenge my bona fides.

So… reread what you wrote and then ask yourself why are you writing such nonsense? You either were very poorly catechized or you are intentionally misrepresenting your family’s faith.

DP. Does the Catholic Church support the woman’s right to choose when and if she becomes pregnant? Birth control?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mom of five here. It is 100 percent easier to have 5 kids than 3. I found 3 the absolute hardest. Now my older kids entertain and help with the younger kids. The year my third was born was the least happy year of my life. I am now the happiest I have ever been since becoming a mom with my fifth almost turning one. I am way more relaxed and it is 100 percent true that older kids help so much. For example on Saturday mornings I will wake up and my 12 year old has changed my toddler's diaper, turned on his cartoon, and gotten him a bowl of cheerios while I lounge in bed with DH.

What I am looking forward to is parents of 2-3 kids trying to explain why those of us with 4+ don't actually know what we are talking about when we say it's easier and we are happier than you all.

No, some of us just don't expect our kids to raise each other, but you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good friend of mine had three kids, all of them six years apart. So, the kids have little interaction (at least the oldest and the youngest really don't) but the parents don't seem unduly stressed by having three. You trade "always having a playmate" for the kids for parental sanity.

I can’t imagine having three kids six years apart and starting over each time (at least not by choice.) I’m pregnant with my third, each spaced three years apart and it already feels like going back to the beginning when you’re just getting past the exhausting baby phase.

I have a similar set up, and was raised with siblings 7+ years apart. Kids don't have playmates when young, that's true, but are close when grow up.

I don't mind starting over or the baby phase. I also feel I can address pay more individual attention than when they are spaced out wider without lumping them all together.

That said, there are pros and cons to each spacing. You never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Religion tells them they can’t use birth control or get an abortion so they do force pregnancy on woman.

Wait.., You mean they forcibly impregnate the women?!?! Or… the women choose to have sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

None of what you wrote relates to Catholicism.

Sure it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Religion tells them they can’t use birth control or get an abortion so they do force pregnancy on woman.

Wait.., You mean they forcibly impregnate the women?!?! Or… the women choose to have sex?

They tell the women they’re going to hell if they use birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Religion tells them they can’t use birth control or get an abortion so they do force pregnancy on woman.

Wait.., You mean they forcibly impregnate the women?!?! Or… the women choose to have sex?

They tell the women they’re going to hell if they use birth control.

I think you wish they said that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Religion tells them they can’t use birth control or get an abortion so they do force pregnancy on woman.

Wait.., You mean they forcibly impregnate the women?!?! Or… the women choose to have sex?

They tell the women they’re going to hell if they use birth control.

I think you wish they said that

are you trying to pretend the Catholic Church doesn’t ban contraception? they don’t even allow the pull-out method, lol. ffs they even condemned condoms when one spouse was HIV positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Religion tells them they can’t use birth control or get an abortion so they do force pregnancy on woman.

Wait.., You mean they forcibly impregnate the women?!?! Or… the women choose to have sex?

They tell the women they’re going to hell if they use birth control.

I think you wish they said that

are you trying to pretend the Catholic Church doesn’t ban contraception? they don’t even allow the pull-out method, lol. ffs they even condemned condoms when one spouse was HIV positive.

No I am not pretending they don’t ban contraception. But that’s not what you said. Look above.

[Anonymous]

Every person born is an additional carbon footprint. And families with a western lifestyle have a much greater impact on the environment than do families who don't.

Therefore, anyone who biologically produces more than two kids is sucking up a disproportionate amount of resources. The same is true of parents who knowingly produce one or more kids who definitely or likely will not be functionally independent adults.

And yes, raising a child well entails not only financial but also physical, emotional, psychological and intellectual resources. So, to cite an extreme example, having one kid is still one kid too many if the parents in question are Alex Dacy and Noah Smith.

There are sane Catholic families, at least in the Northeast: these are the ones with two working parents in professional jobs who provide well in all aspects for no more than two or three kids and use birth control. Tim Carney's is not one of them. He is a patriarchal fascist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every person born is an additional carbon footprint. And families with a western lifestyle have a much greater impact on the environment than do families who don't.

Therefore, anyone who biologically produces more than two kids is sucking up a disproportionate amount of resources. The same is true of parents who knowingly produce one or more kids who definitely or likely will not be functionally independent adults.

And yes, raising a child well entails not only financial but also physical, emotional, psychological and intellectual resources. So, to cite an extreme example, having one kid is still one kid too many if the parents in question are Alex Dacy and Noah Smith.

There are sane Catholic families, at least in the Northeast: these are the ones with two working parents in professional jobs who provide well in all aspects for no more than two or three kids and use birth control. Tim Carney's is not one of them. He is a patriarchal fascist.

It’s obvious you have two kids, since that’s the morally correct number, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every person born is an additional carbon footprint. And families with a western lifestyle have a much greater impact on the environment than do families who don't.

Therefore, anyone who biologically produces more than two kids is sucking up a disproportionate amount of resources. The same is true of parents who knowingly produce one or more kids who definitely or likely will not be functionally independent adults.

And yes, raising a child well entails not only financial but also physical, emotional, psychological and intellectual resources. So, to cite an extreme example, having one kid is still one kid too many if the parents in question are Alex Dacy and Noah Smith.

There are sane Catholic families, at least in the Northeast: these are the ones with two working parents in professional jobs who provide well in all aspects for no more than two or three kids and use birth control. Tim Carney's is not one of them. He is a patriarchal fascist.

It would really amaze you to see how happy these families are. They love their children and the children love each other. It’s not for everybody but it works for a lot of people. These ladies understand the science of natural fertility and have control over their bodies. They are doing as they please. Also, a lot of them are shockingly cute and some are quite beautiful despite all the childbirth. I think it’s the joy factor.

[Anonymous]

I was just thinking about this thread today. One of our four kids is away on a school camping/rafting trip this week, and we all miss him a lot. We miss his jokes and sense of humor, and it just feels like there is this hole in our family without him here.
I feel like there is this sense that after two kids, everyone is kind of lost in the shuffle, and it really doesn’t feel like that at all.
I’m not going to say that everyone needs to have four kids, but I’m glad that we had four, and every one of them are an important part of our family.