Too Many Children?

[Bloodeagle]

That is way too many kids. The amount of attention given to each child is negligible. They will probably develop into some fine Evangelical drones!
This gives a new twist to, quantity over quality.

[jerney]

That is way too many kids. The amount of attention given to each child is negligible. They will probably develop into some fine Evangelical drones!
This gives a new twist to, quantity over quality.

I'm not defending them because I think they're weird, but I think that can be said about some parents who have only a few kids too. I know plenty of people were/are raised with very little interaction with one of both of their parents. The father is working constantly or both parents are working full time and the kids are in school all day and/or daycare after and spend maybe a few hours with their parents before bed and that doesn't even mean quality time.

[Bloodeagle]

I'm not defending them because I think they're weird, but I think that can be said about some parents who have only a few kids too. I know plenty of people were/are raised with very little interaction with one of both of their parents. The father is working constantly or both parents are working full time and the kids are in school all day and/or daycare after and spend maybe a few hours with their parents before bed and that doesn't even mean quality time.

For them a few children are too many, but throw 5 more children into this mix and that leaves the children with even less time.

How does this family get by with so many children? I am sure the father works, so how many hours a day does he spend with each child?
If they run a self sufficient lifestyle on a farm then I am sure the children take turns pulling the plow!

[Brynhild]

I think in this day and age, it's irresponsible to the extreme. Where does the time go in your devotion and care for them? I admit, I don't know of this family enough as to whether they live in suburbia or in the country, but frankly, it's terribly hard work these days just to have a few. It's expensive, it's physically and emotionally taxing, and she has already been advised that any more children could cause more harm to her body. Foolish.

[Grumpy Cat]

Quality over quantity.

[Debaser11]

Quality over quantity, indeed. But there is no set rule across the board for what constitutes quality over quantity for every set of parents. Some shouldn't have more than two because they are incapable of raising more than two children with the attention they need in addition to being unfit to provide for them economically. It really just depends.

Generally speaking, I would not be opposed to some sort of eugenics (non-race based) litmus tests similar to those proposed by Dr. William Shockley some forty years ago.

It's not a simple matter of people having too many children or not enough children. It's that too many people that shouldn't be having children are able to due to welfare and entitlement programs and too few people that should be having tons of children (because their genes are good and they could properly provide for them) are not due to them having to subsidize the lower, incompetent peoples of society. (These smarter women are also conscious of overpopulation and things of that nature but what they need to understand is that for every child they don't have, they are allowing someone else to fill that space. If the white peoples of the world are content to stop having children to "save the planet," they will only be handing the planet over to the nonwhites who have no such scruples because they are ethnically healthy in spirit.)

I also think a woman who has raised five outstanding children has done more for society than just about any profession you care to name. I'm not for forcing women to stay at home and be housewives, but I wish more would see through how shallow their careers are next to raising children. It's denigrated these days and the joke's on us.

That being said, economic times are tough and many families cannot make it without both parents working. But that's almost by design given what I said earlier about the appropriation of wealth. My mother raised four children and now that we're all grown has a job that she loves outside the home. That's pretty close to the ideal in my eyes.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The Duggars are commercial real estate agents, so they're able to support their family. In their case, they have both quantity and quality, which is excellent.

The 'overpopulation' thing also depends more on quality as opposed to quantity. The problem is with low-IQ people who aren't capable of much more than a hunter-gatherer existence on their own having large families (Africa, etc) that are more than the land can support. Higher IQ-peoples who are capable of producing advanced societies, advanced farming techniques, etc, not so much of a problem.

I think the 'parental time' thing is also a BS argument. I think the reason kids today are so immature well into adulthood is because of constant hand-holding by their parents. The other extreme, of no discipline or rules set, is not good either, but kids who are allowed a degree of independence seem to learn self-reliance and mature faster and become better adjusted adults.

[Magister Eckhart]

I chose the third option but I think it's not necessarily the "ethnic" or "racial" background of the parents so much as it is the situation in which they find themselves. A family unable to support a household should not have that household, and should breed according to ability to support itself. For example, a family of 16 in Sub-Saharan Africa where there are heavy food shortages and no jobs is, simply put, a waste of human life, because most of those children will not be able to grow to adulthood and if they do they will be preventing others from growing to adulthood. In an underdeveloped economic situation (especially in the Coloured World, where Western liberal political and economic systems have been forced down people's throats) to have an excess of children is simply irresponsible on the part of the parents.

At the same time, in a developed situation, such as in Europe, and increase in the native population per capita would necessarily prevent the supplanting of that native population by a foreign population seeking jobs. It would not put an excess strain on the economy except insofar as women would have to include "mother" in their list of potential careers, something that the contemporary Western world frowns upon out of this new suicidal instinct, as well as out of economic necessity - nothing can be considered a "career" or "profession" which does not produce material gain from a liberal perspective.

However, increased comforts often produce a decrease in the willingness to breed amongst couples, largely out of what Lord Sachs has rightly called selfishness and sloth, while in comfortless environments couples breed prolifically because of the lack of comfort and the necessity to sustain their kind in the face of annihilation. Between these two extremes is a healthy family and a healthy society.

[Radojica]

If my material side (read:money) do not stop me, I won't stop before I have at least three children

[Radojica]

I'll get you to the US and hook u up with a hot mexican. We need more Serb-Mexican babies.

I don't care. Just give me a fucking job and I'll be sperm bank if needed