Large families are expensive to run and very vulnerable.
Few professions provide an income large enough to provide for one

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I agree.

While "accidents" do happen, I think it makes for some weird dynamics.

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

uh
not really

If I were a breeder who married in my 20s, I just might mirror the lifestyle of the Duggar mom - competing with my DIL as we go through our pregnancies together.

As a 40-something with two small children, while I may not live long to see my own grandchildren, I sure as hell can't compete with my son's future wife.

apples and oranges

Your explanation reveals you as a very selfish person. Are you one of those women who gets upset if your sister/friend/SIL/aunt/cat gets pregnant when you get pregnant? You want the spotlight on you, is that it? Ugh....you're the worst type of pregnant woman. If the choice is between living to see my grandchildren and "competing" to be the only pregnant one in the family at a particular point, I pick seeing my grandchildren. What a ridiculous argument you've made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I agree.

While "accidents" do happen, I think it makes for some weird dynamics.

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

uh
not really

If I were a breeder who married in my 20s, I just might mirror the lifestyle of the Duggar mom - competing with my DIL as we go through our pregnancies together.

As a 40-something with two small children, while I may not live long to see my own grandchildren, I sure as hell can't compete with my son's future wife.

apples and oranges

Why do you think having kids is a competition? That's odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I agree.

While "accidents" do happen, I think it makes for some weird dynamics.

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

uh
not really

If I were a breeder who married in my 20s, I just might mirror the lifestyle of the Duggar mom - competing with my DIL as we go through our pregnancies together.

As a 40-something with two small children, while I may not live long to see my own grandchildren, I sure as hell can't compete with my son's future wife.

apples and oranges

My mother had her last two children (naturally) when she was 43 and 47. They are the same ages as my first and third children.

There is nothing weird about it at all. My youngest siblings and my oldest children are the best of best friends. My mom is Grandma to my kids, no question, and my siblings are my siblings to me. It's great! A bridge between the kids and the grandkids, so to speak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I agree.

While "accidents" do happen, I think it makes for some weird dynamics.

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

uh
not really

If I were a breeder who married in my 20s, I just might mirror the lifestyle of the Duggar mom - competing with my DIL as we go through our pregnancies together.

As a 40-something with two small children, while I may not live long to see my own grandchildren, I sure as hell can't compete with my son's future wife.

apples and oranges

Anonymous wrote:"So what does being "open to children" mean to you?"

Miracle of God, and all that.

OP here to own my words. Yes, I am "open to children," "open to life."

What that means for faithful Catholics is simply that every act of sex is open to the possibility of life resulting. It does not mean trying to have as many kids as possible, or that sex is only to be enjoyed when there is a high likelihood of pregnancy. Not at all. It means God designed sex to be unitative and procreative, inseparably so, and it needs to be respected as such. So couples may use fertility awareness, but they may not use "contra"-ception--artificial means to inhibit or destroy natural conception.

Full justice to this beautiful concept cannot be done here, but that's a brief attempt to clear up any confusion.

Living out God's plan for sex will result in great joy, but also require great virtue. There may be infertility, or recurrent miscarriages, or many babies close together, or many periods of chastity. You never know. And how you deal with the crosses you bear is something you need to answer to God for--but He will always give you the graces to endure, and you can trust He won't give you a scorpion when you ask for bread.

I have had great joy and great suffering in the gift of my fertility, and I try to thank God for all of it. That is what I am called to do, but it can be hard. I'm only human, and I have my wants, and it is difficult to say "Thy will, not mine, be done."

On a practical note, some women welcome huge families, and some women fear them, and some women change their mind along the way. It's a work in progress. For me, I love my huge family, and I always hoped I would be blessed with many children, but I know that is a special gift I have--for many faithful Catholics, it is a huge struggle.

I had another thought, but it will have to wait until the kids are in bed--husband's train is here...

I have seen it both ways. I know a family with 16 kids, and the oldest 6 said they had horrible childhoods, because they were expected to help out in all areas of child rearing. They were home schooled as well. I also know a family with 13 kids (all 16 mo. or less apart) and they went to public school, and were allowed to play sports. Yes, they had to babysit occasionally, and they had a laundry list of chores, but Mom stayed home and cared for the kids. They are super close, and love the way they grew up. If I chose to have more kids, I would do it the way the 2nd family did. My mom always told me "It is no one's responsibility to care for your kids except you and your partner." If you want 16 kids, you better be able to take care of them and not be a burden to your other kids, or family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. I've seen a new wave of Moms who are second time around'ers. They have older children (10+) and then for whatever reason, new marriage or just want a baby in the house, they have a child later in life. So, the dynamics can still be the same. A small family doesn't have to mean that the children are close in age.

Then they probably have more time for each child individually. Also sounds like these kids are planned, at least the later ones, which is different from the "God's will" mentality being discussed where no bc is used.

Hmmm; the argument on this thread seems to be that with large families, the older ones end up caring for their younger siblings. When it's pointed out that this can happen in small families too, the response is that the parents "probably" have more time for each child individually. Why can't this also apply to larger families?

I have 4 children and didn't use the "God's will mentality". Haven't heard anyone else say that on this thread either.

Did you read the entire tread? OP is the one pushing that we all be "open to children" which is the same as the "god's will mentality"

Sorry, but it is not the same at all. You're reaching and trying to make a connection that simply doesn't exist.

So what does being "open to children" mean to you?

Not doing anything to prevent getting pregnant (ex: not using protection). I know some people like that and they aren't religious zealots and/or don't subscribe to the "god's will mentality".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I agree.

While "accidents" do happen, I think it makes for some weird dynamics.

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

"So what does being "open to children" mean to you?"

Miracle of God, and all that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. I've seen a new wave of Moms who are second time around'ers. They have older children (10+) and then for whatever reason, new marriage or just want a baby in the house, they have a child later in life. So, the dynamics can still be the same. A small family doesn't have to mean that the children are close in age.

Then they probably have more time for each child individually. Also sounds like these kids are planned, at least the later ones, which is different from the "God's will" mentality being discussed where no bc is used.

Hmmm; the argument on this thread seems to be that with large families, the older ones end up caring for their younger siblings. When it's pointed out that this can happen in small families too, the response is that the parents "probably" have more time for each child individually. Why can't this also apply to larger families?

I have 4 children and didn't use the "God's will mentality". Haven't heard anyone else say that on this thread either.

Did you read the entire tread? OP is the one pushing that we all be "open to children" which is the same as the "god's will mentality"

Sorry, but it is not the same at all. You're reaching and trying to make a connection that simply doesn't exist.

So what does being "open to children" mean to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I agree.

While "accidents" do happen, I think it makes for some weird dynamics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. I've seen a new wave of Moms who are second time around'ers. They have older children (10+) and then for whatever reason, new marriage or just want a baby in the house, they have a child later in life. So, the dynamics can still be the same. A small family doesn't have to mean that the children are close in age.

Then they probably have more time for each child individually. Also sounds like these kids are planned, at least the later ones, which is different from the "God's will" mentality being discussed where no bc is used.

Hmmm; the argument on this thread seems to be that with large families, the older ones end up caring for their younger siblings. When it's pointed out that this can happen in small families too, the response is that the parents "probably" have more time for each child individually. Why can't this also apply to larger families?

I have 4 children and didn't use the "God's will mentality". Haven't heard anyone else say that on this thread either.

Did you read the entire tread? OP is the one pushing that we all be "open to children" which is the same as the "god's will mentality"

Sorry, but it is not the same at all. You're reaching and trying to make a connection that simply doesn't exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. I've seen a new wave of Moms who are second time around'ers. They have older children (10+) and then for whatever reason, new marriage or just want a baby in the house, they have a child later in life. So, the dynamics can still be the same. A small family doesn't have to mean that the children are close in age.

Then they probably have more time for each child individually. Also sounds like these kids are planned, at least the later ones, which is different from the "God's will" mentality being discussed where no bc is used.

Hmmm; the argument on this thread seems to be that with large families, the older ones end up caring for their younger siblings. When it's pointed out that this can happen in small families too, the response is that the parents "probably" have more time for each child individually. Why can't this also apply to larger families?

I have 4 children and didn't use the "God's will mentality". Haven't heard anyone else say that on this thread either.

Did you read the entire tread? OP is the one pushing that we all be "open to children" which is the same as the "god's will mentality"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but feel some of these stories are exaggerated. I know large families where there was lots of love and small ones where there was abuse and neglect. This isn't about small/large families. The stories here are about bad parenting.

I think though, that parents with lots of kids are pulled in more directions and have the option of having older siblings help, whereas parents of 2-3 young kids don't have this option which can be a good thing when siblings aren't mature enough. My grandparents were dealing with problem teens while they were still having babies in the house and everyone was negatively affected. They weren't bad parents, but there is only so much time and energy. And it was sad that my grandma had grandkids the same age as her kids - definitely makes that relationship less special. I was much closer to my maternal grandmother who had raised all her kids by the time she started having grandkids.

I don't know if this is necessarily true. I've seen a new wave of Moms who are second time around'ers. They have older children (10+) and then for whatever reason, new marriage or just want a baby in the house, they have a child later in life. So, the dynamics can still be the same. A small family doesn't have to mean that the children are close in age.

Then they probably have more time for each child individually. Also sounds like these kids are planned, at least the later ones, which is different from the "God's will" mentality being discussed where no bc is used.

Hmmm; the argument on this thread seems to be that with large families, the older ones end up caring for their younger siblings. When it's pointed out that this can happen in small families too, the response is that the parents "probably" have more time for each child individually. Why can't this also apply to larger families?

I have 4 children and didn't use the "God's will mentality". Haven't heard anyone else say that on this thread either.