My dh got his Master’s in Environmental Policy and throughout his classes he knew when to let folks know we have 11 kids (can you hear their jaws dropping?) and when not to as it would affect his grade (seriously).

It is an interesting group of people who work in the environmental arena when it comes to the population issues.  There are those who have come to the realization that everything Ehrlich wrote in “The Population Bomb” has not come true and the book is full of whooey.  They came to the same conclusions you have.

But, there are also those who insist that the Bomb is still ticking (again, despite not a single catastrophic event such as predicted by Ehrlich, and his predecessor, Malthus) and we MUST DO SOMETHING about the babies.

The real truth rarely works with these folks.

Thanks for the article.
My parents had 7.
My husband and I had 9.

But my grandparents only had 2 & 3 children,respectively.

Children are a blessing to our families & to our nation.

Thank you for putting together such well thought out piece on this topic! I am the 4th of 10 kids and I remember people always saying rude and terrible things to my Mom about having so many children. One time her own cousin told her that because of our family, everyone would be eating seaweed in 20 years because there would be no food left. Well, she said that about 20 years ago, and so far not only has my family not managed to deplete the entire food supply of the entire world, but also, I have not seen anyone eating sea weed, lol. I don’t think the American obesity epidemic is indicative of food shortage caused by large families.

As the oldest of 8 I don’t actually think 5 is that big.
Big families teach necessary skills (sharing, selflessness, service, hard work, communication, cooperation) which are sorely lacking in most of the population. I think we should be more concerned with the quality of children than the quantity. After all, I’d one is a hard-working, well-mannered, considerate person there is always a place for you.

Great piece!  Though the future of our planet is important, human beings are infinitely more valuable.  Thanks for helping others see the positive side of the issue by first acknowledging their fears and then presenting the other side of the equation, which is based on hope, faith and love rather than fear. 

As Our Lord said, “Fear is useless; what is needed is trust.” (Luke 8:50, Mark 5:36)

Great piece!!

My only qualm is with #2, because you left out one possibility that has been niggling at me a lot lately:  your children could realize that they are called to be unconsecrated singles.  The only options are not married or priest/nun/sister.

I think we have been doing a real disservice to our Christian singles, those that always knew they were not called to marriage or consecrated life and those who thought they were called to one or the other but God had other plans for them.

Ellaine, your mention of eating seaweed made lemons pop into my head….

“When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.”
“When life hands you seaweed, add rice & fish, & make sushi!”
Lol

I have a theory that the frequency at which you get chewed out for the carbon footprint of your children increases exponentially by the number of kids: 

(frequency of being chewed out for having n kids) = (frequency of being chewed out for having 1 kid) x e^(kn)

So, at four kids, I only get a small fraction of the negative comments that a mother of five would have.

(The growth constant k is a function of where you live; it’s larger in San Francisco than in Peoria.) 

Anyway, I often appeal to diversity.  “It takes all sizes of families to make a healthy, sustainable population distribution!” I say cheerfully.  I don’t generally show them pictures of bell curves, although I’m tempted to.

I think the ‘over population’ crowd is really just hiding latent racist feelings- except for some Catholics, Mormons and ‘generous’ Protestants in the West (mostly US and Canada- not Europe), it is poor, non-whites who continue to have more than 1.5 children

We get this a little, but mostly we get the “HOW DO YOU AFFORD IT?” question. I think most people who worry about population control think we are beyond hope as we are Catholic, and clearly unscientific and backward. I don’t bother explaining. But, then when those people find out I cloth diaper, I consign clothes, I’m in a food co-op, etc, they are more respectful of our choices. What is funny is that we didn’t make those choices because of the environment, some lofty philosophy or religious call. We do it because it makes our lives easier! Far easier than an x box and family vacations!

I love where you put that every new baby’s hope footprint outweighs their carbon footprint.  Beautiful!

@ priest’s wife: I think you are totally right! I wonder, too, what kind of social lift is experienced when people have moderate to large families. While birth control and abortion are always touted as giving the poor and minorities more opportunities, I suspect smaller family size in this situation may diminish their chances of success (less familial support, fewer pooled resources, lack of care for the aging and children, etc). If that is the case, all this nonsense about overpopulation only serves to keep already oppressed populations at the bottom. Thank you for the insightful article Ms. Fulwiler!

“For example, my rough calculations show that the average American family home has about 500 square feet per person; our family has 250 square feet per person, which means that each of us also consumes less in terms of energy used to heat, cool, and light the house.”

I think your comments about travelling less are spot on, but this bit above doesn’t make sense to me. Presumably you are heating your house to a certain temperature and lighting whatever rooms you have. The amount of energy needed depends on the size and shape of your house. The density of people residing in your house should not affect this significantly. For example, if it takes 50 kw per day of energy to heat my apartment to 70 degrees, it doesn’t matter how many people are sitting in the living room. Same with light- if I have the lights on in three rooms, the number of people reading in each room (and thus taking advantage of the light) doesn’t matter. If I split 1,000 kw by 5 people, each person uses 200 kw. If, on the other hand, I split 1,000 kw by 10 people, each person uses 100 kw. The energy usage per person is lower but the overall energy usage is unaffected.

7. Overpopulation is a myth: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Beautiful!  Thank you for this post!  I remember at a piano recital, during her introduction of one of my sons, our piano teacher commented on how impressed she was with how generously my kids helped each other, and how she found this to be true with most large families. Imagine the potential for a large family to transform a neighborhood, community and on and on! Your point #2 is also excellent!  Again, thanks, this made my day!

Interesting factoid for you. Thomas Malthus (often cited as the father of the “population bomb” like in the article) was very much pro-life. He was against killing anyone, especially the poor and “unwanted”. He felt that based on his observations that eventually we would run out of resources to feed and house everyone. This was contrary to the more popular theory that society could “perfect” itself and create a utopia. His solution to the problem of overpopulation was “self control” and a virtuous life, and he utterly dismissed the notion of a man-made utopia. Shocking!

What a positive, hopeful take on large families!  Great testimony you gave in The Choices we Face !  Keep it going !

I refuse to take seriously anyone who question my family’s carbon footprint until they compost their own poop. 

If you live in a home with the same square footage as mine per person, have already reached past childbearing years with the love of your life AND compost your own poop, THEN we can talk.

...Also you have to be at LEAST a vegetarian.

But there is something to be said about having a large number of kids in an area where jobs are in decline.  And parents will be that much more stressed and distraught in the event of possible employment loss.  Not that it’s ever a “pleasant” thing, but more kids means more money.  It can usually requires a bigger house, which means a larger mortgage is in play.  And more money required may mean both parents need to work, which means less face-time with the kids, being more exhausted, etc.  And with the ever-rising cost of tuition, that much less likely the parents will be able to help in any particular manner, relying on state grants and scholarships that hopefully your child qualifies for.  And you don’t end up with a kid like me who just refused to do school work, not due to inability or disability (they called me gifted even), but simply because I was stubborn and had a bad attitude about it.

A large amount of children means less attention per-child, and more conflicts once they all hit different stages of life.  (Go to the middle school play, or go to the high schooler’s sporting event?  Can’t do both!)  The rebellious teenager who is causing trouble at school is sucking up more attention while the “good kid” is feeling starved for it.

Where is each one at 9PM?  Who are their friends?  What are they doing in their life right now?

Finally, as far as the “overpopulation” concern goes, never mind whether they have kids, although that’s definitely a concern.  If several people have large families, that means several elderly overrunning available care can occur; the problem with the “baby boomers” we have now.  And of course, kids having kids is a multiplication.  If you have six kids, and each one has just two kids of their own, that’s 12 new people totalling a population of 18.  And what if these kids have kids etc.  Sooner or later, we’re winding up with too many people in a given area.  China is a perfect example of what happens.  Just because the US is “bigger” doesn’t mean it can’t happen here too with enough time.

At the end of the day, large families only made sense when there was a high expectation that children wouldn’t survive childhood due to illnesses and general dangers.  In the modern world, there’s really no need for it.  Until things become more stable and prosperous, if that ever happens, we’re just looking at further increasing the support problems and general anxiety of the next generation.

Excellent as always Jennifer.
There are too many people who discount #1. I would feel confident matching the “carbon footprint” of the large families I know against that of the intentional onlies or the boy-girl we are done parents.

Also, as the daughter of a woman who was the eleventh child in her family, I am very grateful that Margret Sanger’s ugliness did not reach my grandparents in Buffalo, NY in the 1930’s.

often priests and nuns come from the later children in a family… smaller families are part of the reason for the shortage of priests.  if you are the only child, or have just one sibling, you may feel like it is your duty to carry on the family name.  my youngest brother is a seminarian… so, there would be one less if our parents stopped at 3 kids.  i have heard of other families where this is true as well.  most people can’t imagine not having their youngest siblings!

@ Al (11:53 am): More people produce more heat, lowering the heating bill. Ever been in a crowded theater? Much, much warmer than when it’s empty. Now if you suggest the cooling bill might balance it out, you might have something, but more persons definitely lowers the heating bill.

As a mom of 9 and one on the way I appreciate this article.  Thank you for writting it. The one thing I try to remember is to pray for those disillusioned of God’s will in their life.

I’m Catholic and I submit to the Magisterium and all, but the thought of one of my kids becoming the next Celine Dion makes me want to get my tubes tied.  Blech.

Other than that, good article.

I think number 5, “Populations tend to correct themselves as resources get more scarce,” is being demonstrated to us right now. In every place on earth, regardless of politics and culture and religion, when women have access to birth control, most choose to have fewer children. A good education is rarely free, and they know they can provide more opportunities for the children they have if they have fewer children.  Some exceptional couples continue to have large families, in most cases one hopes because they have substantial resources and the right qualities to succeed as the parents of many children. This is great, because they are balanced by the couples who are infertile, or who choose to have one or two children because they could not handle a large family. No worries.

More fundamentally, this is what the Earth is FOR.

This is a unique perspective on the situation.  Thanks for posting and sharing.

Ahhhh, so well written.  Thank you.  Right now my husband is up for a really great job in San Francisco (please,say a prayer for us!:)) This would land us back in uber expensive liberalsville,Marin.(Where my son’s best friend is a mayor’s son, and where I strangely found myself babysitting, so his parents could do last minute election work for Obama in New Mexico four years ago!).
.
  We will probably live with at least six of our eight kids in an 1800 sq. ft. house.  They will *walk* to elementary, middle and H.S.  Believe it or not, they have preached “tolerance” in Marin for so long that nobody gives me a hard time for our oddly large brood. Our kids are normal, happy, and really fun.  so naturally THEIR kids want to clump with mine. I figure that they need us so they can be true to their “coexist” bumper stickers.  Plus, it’s like you said, they might drive a Prius, and disdain McMansions, but there are three or four of them in 2500 sq. ft. They jet off regularly to exotic places like Indonesia and Europe…
.
  We are the only ones that take up the whole pew at mass.  People are simply shocked.  They mutiply what their two kids cost times four, but just don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t work that way.
.
When they ask me if I’m “done”, I’m tempted to ask them if they have a great sex life! lol.  What I say with a deadpan look on my face is: “I was done at four” (even though I’m cuddling my adorable eighth)  My husband has promised never, EVER to apologetically say, “we don’t have a TV” ever again!
.
Oh, and one more thing:  You should see their kids’ face when my kid says: “I could never vote for Obama”  They look shocked, and ask “Why?” My kid will say something like: “He believes in partial birth abortion.”  When they respond “What’s THAT?!” my kid gives them a graphic description.  With horror on their faces they say “That’s not possible”...I can’t believe I haven’t even gotten even one angry phone call! But I DO think it was my son John Paul’s open letter to Obama (class project)that turned his teacher against him.  God bless my little John Paul, he didn’t mince words!

Elaine, tell them this world already exists: it’s called Japan!
-
One nitpicky thing, I think families like the Bachs are not the greatest example to use because in that time something like half the kids still died before reaching adulthood.

I take issue with the term, “the Earth’s resources.”  A thing is a resource when somebody figures out how to use it, and not before.  It ceases to be a resource when we find a better way to do what we had used the resource for.  Things which once were not resources include petroleum, uranium, and bauxite.  Baleen and whale oil used to be very important resources, but they aren’t any more.

Well written article. Thank you very much for sharing. I also come from a large family. Having worked in Japan for many years now, the government predicts that the population in 50 years will decrease by one-third. The major cause is not large families, rather birth control methods and abortion.

Jennifer, take it from the second oldest of nine: there is only one way to answer the question, “Are you done yet?”  You should look seriously at the questioner and reply, “Given how absolutely perfect our existing children are, we believe that we have a serious responsibility to future generations to make sure that our descendents will one day amount to enough people to be the dominant leaders in politics, art, law, and culture; anything less would deeply irresponsible of us.”  (And—bonus!—this answer is easily adapted to the question “Why do you homeschool?”  Just change “...amount to enough people to be…” to “are properly trained to become…” and you’re good to go.) :)

Such a beautiful, well-written article.  Thank you for it!!

You forgot one: using contraception (regardless of family size) directly causes environmental damage.  Think of the packaging and latex that goes into making condoms—and where that all ends up (landfills).  Think of all the energy that goes into making *billions* of pills containing known carcinogens (hormonal contraceptives) and where those end up (our water supply).  Think of the direct cost of using contraception (at least $500/year for females), not to mention the indirect costs of doctors visits, trips to the pharmacy, and, oh yeah, what to do when that pesky breast cancer shows up and you need treatment.
***
@Cephas, others: I would also postulate that larger families tend to have smaller homes in terms of overall size, not just by sq ft/person.  Most of the people I’ve run across with huge homes (say 4000+ sq feet) have smaller families.  Conversely, most of the larger families I know “make do” (i.e., are content with) smaller homes as they tend to not pursue materialism with quite the same fervor as others.  Obviously this is anecdotal—anyone have any true stats on that?  But it stands to reason that those with large families make better use of the resources they have rather than vigorously pursue the consumption of more resources.
***
As an aside, I happen to think a good response to the question, “Are you done?” is, “Why do you want to know?”  Personally, I find such questions obnoxious as one’s family size and how they got there is nobody’s darn business anyway.  Those asking such questions should be put on the defensive, rather than making others feel as though they must justify the existence of their family.

Wonderful look at your life…thanks for sharing!  I only had two kids because that is all I COULD have (fertility drugs helped us have the two we were blessed with) but I have never met a baby I didn’t love.  Too bad that they turn into 2 years olds and later 14 year olds, though!

Looking at the list of later born children, I could only sadly wonder how many people that could have cured cancer, brokered peace in the mid-east,saved chilren from burning home and the like were never allowed to see the light of the world or breathe oxygen due to abortion….

Keep loving those little bearers of “Hope Footprints!”

By having more kids which necessitates a life of learning to love, share, and sacrifice, you are doing the world a favor by tipping the balance that much further away from a population of individualistic, self-centered types who expect to be the center of the universe. That can only benefit all of us. Good job!

Very nice, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this common objection and providing some material for discussion.

As one of eleven children, all of whom have made significant contributions to the communites in which they live, I thank you. Whenever someone grouses about large families, I give them the relativist’s rallying cry: “Don’t be judgin’”.

@RMMT: I’ve noticed the same about better use of resources. I was addressing the very limited scope of Al’s comment.

Love the “Hope Footprint”. Keep it large!

@RAS The problem with the baby boomers is not that there were too many of them born, but that they in turn have not had enough children to make a substantial tax base for their government-funded care. On a personal level having 2.5 children means fewer people available to take on the needs of elderly parents. And let’s look at your example of China—each married couple is now obligated to care for presumably 4 aging parents and potentially 8 elderly grandparents (because hardly anyone in China has either siblings or cousins nowadays). That should cause more anxiety for our children than overcrowding!

As a teen in the 70’s I internalized the dire warnings of the environmentalist about dwindling resources and sought to live out a respect for the environment for the sake of future generations. I also felt that it was a scandal that the world had the resources and technology to supply human needs for everybody, but many were currently experiencing dire poverty.  Having lived with these thoughts and feelings through my college years and having studied agronomy and environemental science I connected up with a non denominational christian NGO which had a project in Zambia, Africa. In Zambia for 1 1/2 years I worked on the village level with community organizational and health outreach, and for 2 years I worked as a horticultural production manager for a large agribusiness. From these experience at no time did I conclude that overpopulation was a problem. The problems were ignorance, and a certain fatalism borne of poverty. Zambia has huge potential for agricultural growth, given good policies which encourage investment at the village level and the corporate level. It could become a bread basket. Zambia maybe a special case since it has a small population relative to cultivatable land. However, even in densly populated country, through advanced technologies such as hydroponic greenhouse production inwhich water and fertlizer is recyled and in which energy resource are conserved, there is vast potential for food production.

Am I the only one who finds all the marketing of “eco friendly” products, designed to get us to buy more things, thus increasing fuel consumption by shipping said things, to be faintly ridiculous?  Great article.

But how many children have you adopted?
“If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

Your White life in the United States is not a problem. The population that is told that “sheaths” spread AIDS and that it is better to watch your children starve than take a pill is the problem

Prosperity is needed before a large family can be a happy one.

“Prosperity is needed before a large family can be a happy one.”

If happiness is equivalent to prosperity, there is very little hope for happiness in this life -or the next. 

It is gut-wrenching to see picture of families unable to feed their starving children, but I’m sure if they had the choice to do away with their children in order to have more food, more money, more clothes, and a better roof over theirs heads, they’d cling furiously to their children and tell us to take our “things” and throw THEM on the rubbage heap.

Despite any level of poverty, shame on anyone who is unable to see the absolute folly of valuing any thing or multitude of things over one human life.  Only we are made in the image and likeness of God.  Not trees.  Not dollar bills.  Not houses.  Not KIAs.  Not even beans and rice.

Thank you for sharing your experiences and your reasoning with us.  Still, the thing that strikes me the most is the way in which people feel free to make any comment at all about your family size.  I wonder how many such comments childless couples receive; you know, those who have two or three dogs on their Christmas cards with them.  Most people, apart from their own parents, who may hope to become grandparents of real children and not of “granddogs.  I can only tell you that, if I had my life to live again, I would welcome as many children as the Lord would have given me.  His plan is always the only good one, and people who think they can come up with a better one are doomed to disappointment.

Correction. Most people probably think nothing of the couple’s childlessness
, apart from the couple’s own parent, who may hope to become grandparents of real children and not of “granddogs.”

@Anita Monino “But how many children have you adopted? If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

I think this attitude is part of the problem: If you are raising your children and that’s keeping you well busy, you are still not doing things right unless you adopt a child. No, no. Adoptive children aren’t puppies. It’s not easy to adopt children and have them fit in immediately like a dog that needs nutrition, exercises, and de-worming. Especially not older children who have a history with another family. 

@Rita - Your “White lives” comment reduces me to words I can’t type without being banned. American life is by/for white folks? Excuse me while I use this Internets thang to say that we have ALL contributed (for better or worse) to life in the US and we ALL draw from that.

“Prosperity is needed before a large family can be a happy one.”

Define “prosperity.” If my parents waited until they were prosperous to have children, my siblings and I would remain unborn. My parents would not exist because my mother’s family lived without electricity here in the US until 1958. You could blame it on her family size (5 children), but my father’s family was large and well-off and their childless married uncles lived in poverty.

As for condoms, the problem isn’t wearing “sheaths” - it’s the lack of monogamy. If a husband and a wife slept only with each other, how would AIDS spead? If you think “prosperity” will be attained with birth control and condoms, I suggest you look to Detroit, where illegitimacy is over 70%. Our grandparents’ generation and even parents’ generation married and raised their own children, but men today have no reason to marry because they see that they can “sheath” or abort away anything that might change their lifestyle. And if a woman do get pregnant, he can shove it back at her that she alone is responsible for the “choice.” You can be miserable in an environment like this, even if you don’t have a lot of children.

Please, if you feel that God wants you to have more children, please say yes. We are sorely lacking in children in our world. When there were more children running around people were safer and adults curtailed their bad behavior more. I wish I could have a large family but now I’ll be grateful if God gives me a Husband and even blesses the marriage with one child. Large families aren’t until you get around 9 kids anyway.

The over-population myth is straight from Satan himself. What other lie has caused more evil?  I grew up in the seventies when it was in the air.  Most likely it has caused millions of people to limit their children. So, millions and millions of people are not alive today, as they were supposed to be, because of that myth.

I have 7 “bio” kids and 4 more adopted, and am called “Dad” by 5 others who needed a dad but don’t live with us.  We have a great life.  Always someone to read to or play chess with, there is no shortage of human contact.  We no longer have time to waste on TV, and good riddance to that.

Nearly every family I know has zero, 1 or 2 kids.  Statistically, we are 10 sigmas beyond the ordinary and represent a tiny fraction of a percent of US families.  Unless charity gets really contagious, I don’t see US population even at replacement levels.

My wife and I have been blessed with a large Catholic family. I was raised in a large Catholic family. Don’t dignify that “Green Carbon Footprint crap” with logic. It deserves a kick to the curb. Europe is in negative population death mode. Be fruitful and multiply. Al Gore, the filandering massage man and his thugs, are fossil fuel guilty bunch of con artists seeking to attain world governance via paganistic environmental naziism and global taxation.[aka Modern day atheistic communism] This ia a multi-billion dollar world scam. The Holy Father needs to shake free of this evil and start saving the babies rather than saving the earth. That world financial recommendation via the communistic cardinal in the Vatican was no mistake and frightening. Orthodox Catholics need to call the Vatican out when they are wrong and not speaking ex-cathedra. The evil within our walls. Christi Fidelis !

I am expecting #8 in June and we live on a dairy farm. My kids are home/cyber schooled and we have less than 1700 sq ft in a house. My kids get along with most ages, they are learning to be responsible and have respect for others of any age. They willingly include anyone of any race in their play, and do not mind if they have deformities or mental problems. All are considered new “friends”. Usually later they come up with their own idea of something we have that we could give to that person to help or make him happier. I am not Catholic and I choose to have a large family. I think it funny when people come visit our new babies and ask, “are you done now?” Most are just curious, some are envious, and some just shake their heads. The rude ones are usually people who are just passers-by. We live on an income that most people are astonished at! We raise a lot of our own food and it takes work (believe it or not!) My children love to do crafts, and gardening and there are enough to go around so no one has it all to do by themselves. My 7th child finally got new “used” clothing since the stuff from her sister 14 years older was tired of being stored and used and just simply fell apart. We make a lot of our clothes and it is fun and teaches them a useful skill. They beg to be allowed to sew. I do not think large families are for everyone, but it is none of anyone’s business if I have one. After all~ I am not begging you for handouts, am I? I hope I am raising a family to appreciate more what they have and not rely on $$$ to buy the next new gadget to get them through life. We have found that the bartering system still works and people are envious of what we have and what it would cost them in a store. So in closing, though there is more I could say, thank you for your post and remember, when people comment, usually there is underlying JEALOUSY.

Will, sir - I admire you. I have two young’uns, and would gladly reach 7+4+? Keep up the good work.

“Hope Footprint”, what a wonderful phrase , lets promote it and hope it catches on.

JR, you are wrong?  Childlessness is just as ostracized as large families. How about praying for a child for years and still hearing people say “So when are you going to have a family or are you just going to have one?”  Infertility and secondary infertility is devastating to many.  They are just trying to make the best out of what God gave them by having dogs.  If you want a large family, have one, if you don’t than don’t.  I believe that the overpopulation myth has been perpetuated to stop minorities, religious people and the poor from having children.  Fortunately only the rich and white have actually bought into, so don’t be surprised if the minority populations are on the rise.  You are so right about #5 and 6.  God knows what he’s doing.  When we stay faithful, he keeps us.

JR - I agree with mrsceecee above.  Being one of the childless due to infertility in both myself and my husband - I can attest to the cruelty we have endured over the years at our childless state.  Comments can range from “Do you have kids? No? Why not?” to “When are you going to catch up to your sister in law?” to “You are so blessed that you can’t have children” and just about everything else in between, including questioning us on why we didn’t adopt children; not one of those is anyone’s business and yet each one of those statements has been said to me over the years. For the past 5-7 years those comments stopped and in general we were able to live a life without that kind of judgment and prying. And now that I’m in my late 40s, when I meet someone new and the conversation inevitably turns to children, the response I get is the sympathetic tilt of the head and the “soft cow eyes”. That’s called pity and it’s just as intrusive as the other statements.

I’m the youngest of my parent’s 16 children.
I currently have 5, with the hopes of more.
My grandparents have 50 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren, with one on the way.
I agree with what your article points out almost entirely, with the exception of the idea that my children may “choose” to have smaller families.  We don’t believe in NFP, so we hope our children won’t have well, and will be setting the example to them that I was given: be totally open to any and all children God sends you, whether many or few, and you will have a happy life.
Thanks for the great points!

I have ten children with number eleven on the way and I get asked this very same question and I tell them it is up to God how many I have not me. They ask ate you not worried about what you are doing to your body and I’m like nope God will take care of me what I worry about is my soul. When they ask how do you support them all o tell them through the grace of God for he does not give me anything I cannot handle.

love your article very much. enjoyed the comments perhaps just as much!! My husband and I are the proud adoptive parents of 11 children. The whole overpopulation thing is just a bunch of propaganda fed to us by margaret sangor and her eugenic crew in an attempt to justify and lend legitamacy to birthcontrol and hedonism which will be the death of this country…not extra babies. I believe we should have as many children as god calls us to. I sometimes wish he had halted at um, less, but he wanted 11 so we have 11. God Bless!!!

A VERY WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE! I enjoyed every word!  Thank you for sharing the truth!!!

I appreciate Mrs. Fulwiler’s earnestness in supporting a “green” lifestyle, because while “overpopulation” is just one more stick to beat religious people into submission, the poor stewardship of our earth is a real fact. Often whole regions have been degraded and sucked completely bare of fruitfulness because of godless utilitarianism (“this is what works and is cheap!”).

So my opinion is that “environmentalism” does have this one benefit: to remind us that we ought not use things up permanently or wantonly destroy for short-term wealth-building. That truly God gave us the whole world in order to live and worship him, but also to care for it—tend it—and that it is wicked to misuse it.

And I second the statement about larger families using less per person: we have six children in a 1700 square foot home. We don’t buy baby formula, tiny packets of snacks, new clothes, new cars, or new furniture. We cook from scratch and recycle absolutely everything they’ll let us (it cuts way back on the garbage bill, for sure). We drive our cars until they are completely dead and have never had a car that looked good, ever. Our kids know first-hand how important it is to think of others’ good and that what we have has to go around evenly; selfish consumption gets disciplined firmly. They are learning just from large-family life itself not to expect that STUFF will make them happy.

And to the commenter who said that prosperity was necessary for large families to be happy, I just think that’s incorrect. Small families living in starvation are no happier than large ones; it’s the starvation that is the problem, not family size. And allowing contraception into intact, healthy marriages in the Third World will not fix the problem; it will further weaken the men’s sense of responsibility toward their wives and children and further separate the pleasure of sex from its procreative and family implications. Moral degradation is no solution to physical degradation.

Better to have full hands than empty hands :)

I only have one comment.  It’s odd to see statements like, “I don’t see US population even at replacement levels” along with comments indicating that children are in God’s image and are not to be treated like material belongings.  As the mother of an adopted child, I have my own opinions about the suffering so many children go through who have been born into such poverty that they don’t have basic needs met.  It’s very easy to be cavalier about their suffering when one hasn’t experienced/seen it in person.  However, I’m just wondering how individuals who promote the dignity of human beings can, at the same time, discuss them as “replacements” or as needed taxpayers to care for the elderly of future generations.

Thank you for your article.  Great!! Also, let’s remember so many of today’s women are waiting until their career is accomplished to have children, and are having great difficulty & in need of infertility treatments . .Overpopulation? I don’t think any timesoon!

It is very hard for me to understand that way needing money to raise a family is belittled.  If you take a minute to listen maybe you can explain it to me?  I have known numerous large families who say the same things Jennifer said here.  They repeat the points that it does not cost that much to raise kids etc etc. Their comments point out how silly those small families are asking us how we support our children. Yet, they live on gov’t assistance either thru food stamps, medicaid or welfare.  They do not have unplanned emergencies.  Gov’t funded health care is their plan.  At the same time I look at another large Catholic family who has both parents working because they feel strongly about supporting themselves and not living off the backs of their fellow taxpayers.  You can say all you want about how you can afford anything and still have a large family but the reality is some are affording it because of the generosity of their fellow tax payers and how that is acceptable I can not understand.

The truth is a I see many large families that live in constant stress over financially providing for their kids because at some point they realized it does cost alot of money to raise kids.  God just does not grow a money tree in the back yard. However, if you live in America the gov’t can in a sense be your money tree.

We are 3 siblings. Our parents are both gone more than a decade now and we still feel their absence. Particularly when we needed each other, like when my sister had to undergo a medical procedure, I couldn’t fly out to her because job responsibility halfway across the globe had me bound. If there were more of us, she would have had more than my brother beside her then. It isn’t all warm and sunny for small families.

What a completely specious, misleading argument.  You think you’re different from anyone else?  FIrst, your carbon footprint figures are completely fabricated by you—- where do you back up anything you say on that subject with anything other that what you think/feel/hope? —- but anyone with experience can tell you that other families—- not just big ones are also reducing their carbon footprints.  So the only thing that makes you special is you’re having lots of kids.  Think about it—- if I have 1 kid with a lower than average carbon footprint and you have say 12 kids with the same lower than average carbon foot print per capita, you have still 12x the amount of carbon footprint generated in your household.  The trick here is to have fewer kids and to have them with lower footprints.  It’s not “either/or”—- it’s both.  This argument of yours is full of “I am not convinced” rhetoric—- but really I am not convinced by one thing you’ve said.  Bottom line:  all the empirical evidence is in favor of having smaller families and teaching them to sacrifice and generate low carbon footprints.  You’re just taking your half out of the middle as far as I can tell.

Well Elizabeth, I have one child, and I can tell you that I don’t rinse out plastic baggies.  I try not to be wasteful, but I having a large family would definitely motivate me to do better, and I’m sure that’s true for the vast majority of people.  To imply that the average small families go to such drastic lengths to conserve is much more misleading than the arguments in this article.

Money:  I’m sure you’re probably the same person who anonymously criticized large families on Jennifer’s last post.  Look at the stats:  the majority of people on welfare are young, single mothers, not large Catholic families.  They are the exception, not the rule.  And this article is about overpopulation and environmental issues, but you have to turn everything into a discussion about finances for large families, and use every chance you get to criticize large families.  Clearly you are very opposed to large families (and probably NFP as well, or anything that goes along the line with conservative Catholic teaching, which really makes me wonder why you spend so much time on blogs written by conservative Catholics).  I’m all for responsible parenthood, but that doesn’t mean that large families are automatically irresponsible.  Just because parents haven’t made it a priority to save $100,000 for each of their child’s college educations doesn’t mean that they are being negligent in their parental duties.  It is a balance between being prudent and realizing that we can’t plan for everything.  Some things are beyond our control.  Your line of thinking could easily be stretched to imply that people should use abortifacient contraceptives (or even have deliberate abortions) to prevent poverty.

My wife and I had one child by design and then shut down the factory at the urologist’s office.  Having grown up beyond destitute and poor I wanted my daughter to have the opportunities otherwise not afforded to me.  My wife came from a very wealthy family (vacation condo in Europe kind of thing)and wanted her to have the opportunities afforded to her.  On school teacher salaries the only way to live well was to just have one.  I mean, the opera lessons do not come cheap, the guitar does not pay for itself, and the harmonica coach charges me $50/hour.  At 13 years of age, I let her have a line of credit at Aeropostal (of course in my name)and she has been to Europe with us already and we are taking her to Israel and the Middle East in June.  I would rather raise one well and right then to do the kind of rationing Jennifer that you venerate.

Loved your article and I am sure my Mom would have loved to have some of your responses.  I am the oldest of 13 and I cannot imagine my life without ALL of my siblings.  Yes, we did without a lot of material things but the love and joy and all the non-material things more than make up for it.  I will use that hope footprint for anyone who dares to make an unthinking remark about the size of my family.  Thanks so much.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the Hope Footprint paragraph. Too often people get caught up in the material part of “parenting” forgetting that it is the relationship between a parent and child that is the greatest act/part of the family dynamic. I learned early on in parenting my oldest that her favorite toy wasn’t even a toy, it was me sitting down to play with her. We don’t need 4000sf or new Gap brand clothing to be a great family. We need each other.
And when people talk about the cost of having a family, yes it is costly. But the most expensive thing about my daughter’s first year of life was the $1300 hospital bill and health insurance. But our friends don’t have kids and they went to Hawaii and on a Colorado ski trip last year(carbon footprint?), and I’m betting that was more than $1300. Having children doesn’t necessarily make you spend more money, it just makes you allocate it differently.
.
And for those who think you should be married x-number of years before having children, or you should have x-amount of money in the bank, I say we model our family after the Holy Family. God didn’t send His only begotten Son to a married couple of 6 years with $100,000 saved who had already gotten to travel the world before settling down. He sent His Son to 2 honorable, morally sound, faithful, devoted people who loved one another and trusted in Him and His calling to them to be parents. So that’s the family model we will follow.

Thank you for this wonderful article. I will be sharing the link with all my friends. I am a Protestant but agree that God knows the size of every family and we should embrace that number, not deny it. We never know what the children would have done whom we choose not to bring into this world. I also love the phrase HOPE FOOTPRINT in contrast to carbon footprint. We have raised five wonderful Godly young adults who are making a difference in this world. That is always good for the environment.

I wanted to add a comment re: small families being at a loss because no one is there to help them.  I am from a large family but do not live near any of my siblings. Yet over time I learned how to develop a community of friends who support each other in time of need.  Honestly, because of the grave dysfunction we grew up in I’m not entirely sure my large family would be helpful to me if they lived close by.  My mother had more children that she could handle and while I am happy all my siblings are here it does not fix the brokenness.  There are MANY people who come from large and small families who do not live close to their biological family.  This is what being part of a christian community is about.  I want my kids to be able to form relationships with other people and serve other people.  I don’t think families exist to serve themselves.  My neighbor had 4 kids and not one of them had children and yet my SIL is an only child and now her mom has 5 grandkids.  Be careful about looking at your children as some kind of insurance that guarentees lots of grandkids or help in old age.  The reason we have kids is not to fulfill our own needs for security.

@Claire:  You clearly are missing the point —- probably because you want to—- I gave a hypothetical example and at NO time made a claim or anything like a claim that smaller families ARE doing better with respect to CF reduction.  I did some simple math that is empirically provable and did make a point—- having fewer kids AND teaching them to lower their CF is the best option.  People who have large families are thinking only of themselves just by the number of children they are having.  They are NOT thinking about the entire rest of the planet.  Most of the “I love my large family” responses I’ve read on this list are actually paeans to selfishness of a magnitude I cannot imagine.  We all love our families—- but some of us also love the planet and ALL the people on it (not just those in our families)  and want to be sure there is enough for everyone.

No Elizabeth, you’re the one who is missing the point.  There’s the ideal and then there’s the reality.  Human nature being what it is, most people (even those who want to preserve the environment) aren’t going to be motivated to go to drastic measure such as rinsing out baggies, among other things, unless they have a strong personal motivator.  Having a large family is not necessarily selfish.  There are people who do it for very unselfish reasons, just as there are people who have small families (or no children at all) for very selfish reasons.

@ “I am from a large family”, who I assume is the same person as “money” (and also probably the same person who posted an anti-large family comment anonymously on Jennifer’s previous post about paying for college):  Isn’t it interesting how our childhood experiences influence our passions and opinions on these topics?  I grew up in a small family, yet it was also dysfunctional, largely due to my mother’s inability to juggle a fulltime job with motherhood.  She was extremely overwhelmed;  having one foot in both worlds was simply too much for her.  (And incidentally, even though my family was small and even though both parents worked fulltime, they still couldn’t pay for our college.)  This has made me very skeptical about the idea of having both parents employed fulltime outside the home.  I suppose I could use my bias to go to working mother’s blogs and warn the working mothers about the risks they are taking, but I haven’t felt tempted to do this.  Instead, I try to tactfully encourage people to think of the implications when the topic comes up, while also realizing that there are people who can juggle it all, and there are also compromises between having both parents work outside the home vs having one parent home 100% of the time. 

It’s the same thing with large families.  Yes, there are considerations.  Yes, people should be fiscally responsible (among other things).  Yes, children are not cheap (but the costs associated with raising kids are very inflated by the mainstream).  I myself am a very cautious person, and even if I had been blessed with fertility, I doubt that I would have had more than 4 kids (unless God surprised me with more) unless I felt very financially secure.  I don’t condone throwing caution to the wind and having child after child without prayerfully discerning each pregnancy attempt and taking a careful look at how the finances are looking, and I also don’t condone having child after child without simultaneously saving for retirement.  But there is a difference between gently reminding people of these considerations, vs constantly criticizing large families and making generalizations about them.  Maybe some large families are fiscally irresponsible.  Maybe some moms have more kids than they can handle.  But there are plenty of large families who are doing it well, and paying for a child’s college education is not an essential criteria for good parenting.  And large Catholic two-parent families are not exactly a huge drain to the welfare system.  The vast majority of people receiving welfare are unmarried mothers.

Dear Elizabeth,
Your cold “efficiency”, laced with haughtiness leads me to believe that you have neither the warmth or the kindness to have a family *anything* like the author’s.  Does this mentality makes our Earth a better place?
.
God’s beautiful creation is not an end in itself.
.
I am a firm believer in stewardship of the earth’s goods. This affects many of my decisions, but it isn’t my religion.  I’m not a fanatic, are you?  You eschew flying on planes etc.?
.
*One* of the author’s children has more worth than this Earth, because she has a soul, made in the image and likeness of God.*
.
I know you don’t believe this because of your tone, but I believe this about you too.
.
You are dying, I am dying.  The Earth must die some day.  I hope that neither you nor I in our lifetimes see an *entire city* wiped from the face of the earth, because of *hate*.  Hate is born of fear and distrust of our fellow man.  Man is not the enemy.
.
I am far, far more worried about human beings that begrudge new souls the earth’s resources (while they themselves consume them)than I am about carbon footprints.
.
Yes, YOU are worth more than the entire Earth!

@money, I have read many ignorant opinions in my time but this one takes the cake. I may be mistaken but this is a catholic forum where we are called to be open to life…however many we are called to. To make such a blanket statement is ridiculous. The writers intent and the opinion of many families is if we put more priority on life and not electronics and vacations…then it can be easier. Our kids dont get theie own rooms now but it is an expectation in many families. We pay dor what we see as important and so in a way it costs less. For example, I think its cheaper to feed my 11 kids organic than regular because its more filling though conventional wisdom says its not so. Your outrageous comment shows ignorance of large families, predudice, and a totally secular mind set. And just plain bad manners.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the Hope Footprint paragraph. Too often people get caught up in the material part of “parenting” forgetting that it is the relationship between a parent and child that is the greatest act/part of the family dynamic. I learned early on in parenting my oldest that her favorite toy wasn’t even a toy, it was me sitting down to play with her. We don’t need 4000sf or new Gap brand clothing to be a great family. We need each other.
And when people talk about the cost of having a family, yes it is costly. But the most expensive thing about my daughter’s first year of life was the $1300 hospital bill and health insurance. But our friends don’t have kids and they went to Hawaii and on a Colorado ski trip last year(carbon footprint?), and I’m betting that was more than $1300. Having children doesn’t necessarily make you spend more money, it just makes you allocate it differently.

And for those who think you should be married x-number of years before having children, or you should have x-amount of money in the bank, I say we model our family after the Holy Family. God didn’t send His only begotten Son to a married couple of 6 years with $100,000 saved who had already gotten to travel the world before settling down. He sent His Son to 2 honorable, morally sound, faithful, devoted people who loved one another and trusted in Him and His calling to them to be parents. So that’s the family model we will follow.

I’m sorry Holly that you find it so offensive that I believe part of being open to life means that you take responsiblity and provide for the children you conceive.  And that somehow this is a secular mindset.  That is the problem. Open to life seems to means conceive as many children as you biological can and that is not what the church teaches.  I am not talking about electronics and vacations or giving each child their own room. I am talking about the reality of providing for a family and what that takes in today’s economy and health care expenses.  I am talking about food, adequate shelter, health care and clothes.  I am not talking about anything else and I am not even talking about new clothes.  It sounds to me like you read into my post and are very defensive about your own choices.  People raised points about being asked how they afford it and the truth is some people afford it by having the gov’t provide.  I have seen both sides of this issues and I am thankful we have a gov’t that provides.  I just don’t believe it is there to provide for people for the long term.  It is awfully preachy for some large families to talk about how open to life they are and then look down on 2 income families who are trying to make ends meet and support the kids they have without gov’t assistance.

Many people got on this thread to tell you how they afford it. What on earth makes you think that any one of them takes a dime from the government and it is incredibly judgemental of you to assume that every family with a lot of children must be on welfare. Further, it really isnr your buisness or mine if some one is. I didnt hear anyone on here saying therw is something wrong with you if you feel you can only afford a few children despite people telling you its infinitely possible. Maybe you regret some of your own choices…

In defense of money.  People with large families do get much better tax breaks that those without—- so there is one way they are “subsidized.”  Frankly, I’d like to see it go the other way—- more tax liability with each child might do a lot to keep people thinking about overpopulation.  Finally, I’ve worked in social welfare agencies (funded by taxpayer monies) and volunteer in one now.  This economic down turn we’re facing has been brutal—- and we routinely see huge families (families with 6-10 kids) coming in for assistance.    In fact, percentage wise that seems to be the group coming in the most—- in part because with so many kids the mother usually didn’t get a chance to stay in the paid workforce.  So when the father loses his job or it is downsized . .. . there was no economic plan b for how to bail the family out of its troubles.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the Hope Footprint paragraph.
Too often people get caught up in the material part of “parenting” forgetting that it is the relationship between a parent and child that is the greatest act/part of the family dynamic. I learned early on in parenting my oldest that her favorite toy wasn’t even a toy, it was me sitting down to play with her. We don’t need 4000sf or new Gap brand clothing to be a great family. We need each other.
And when people talk about the cost of having a family, yes it is costly. But the most expensive thing about my daughter’s first year of life was the $1300 hospital bill and health insurance. But our friends don’t have kids and they went to Hawaii and on a Colorado ski trip last year(carbon footprint?), and I’m betting that was more than $1300. Having children doesn’t necessarily make you spend more money, it just makes you allocate it differently.
And for those who think you should be married x-number of years before having children, or you should have x-amount of money in the bank, I say we model our family after the Holy Family. God didn’t send His only begotten Son to a married couple of 6 years with $100,000 saved who had already gotten to travel the world before settling down. He sent His Son to 2 honorable, morally sound, faithful, devoted people who loved one another and trusted in Him and His calling to them to be parents. So that’s the family model we will follow.

The real reason for the Catholic ban on birth control?

More little believers to give money to the Pope. It’s really that simple. It’s about growing the cult.

Why do you hate me?

Yeah, I’ve written lots of checks to the pope.

Tax deductions do not equate subsidies, welfare, or government subsidies.  Tax credits are another story.  Hmm, tax liabilities for having children;  sounds a lot like China to me. 

Money:  I haven’t seen any comments here disparaging families with two working parents, nor have I seen any that encourage having as many children as biologically possible.  You’re the one reading into things, not Holly.

And, as far as Holly defending her choices, I don’t think anyone who adopted 11 children should have to defend her choices.  A choice like that speaks for itself, and I can’t imagine anyone questioning that type of a selfless choice.

“Traditionalist” Catholics and Mormons are well known for dumping their spawn on the taxpayer dole through government-funded Medicaid and food stamps. It’s just a fact.

Oh really?  How about backing it up with some statistics.  The stats I’ve shown indicate that the vast majority of welfare recipients are single mothers, not traditional Catholics.  And anyway, if so many Catholics are so poor that they need Medicaid and food stamps, how are they going to send their checks to the pope?

The Vatican wants more and more Catholics, that’s why the little old virgin in Rome is telling you to reproduce as much as possible. It’s the same reason Mormons do it. You’re being used as a baby machine for the Vatican and you don’t even realize it.

Also, anyone else find it hilarious that millions of people take their advice on sex and families from life-long virgins?

Ugh, trolls.  Claire and Holly—you are clearly the “givers” in this equation.  Don’t let haters get you down.  Love has already won. :)

Claire, just an fyi from a NON-troll, there really are some single mothers who are traditional Catholics.  I for one am just that.  Things happen and either you find yourself single after having children or, like me, you never find the “right” man and decide to adopt a little one anyway.  Though I love the faith, it’s unfortunate that the institution of the Catholic Church rarely if ever recognizes us single parents as having “real” families.

Elizabeth:
When you see these families with 6-10 kids come in for public assistance, are they from the same, biological, married, mother and father?  This matters.  Marriage between biological parents reduces poverty.  But for some reason, this fact goes ignored by most.
Secondly, when you made these “CF” calculations, did you account for statistical error?  Or even simpler still, do you know how to calculate pressure of gases using the ideal gas law?  Do you know the ideal gas law by heart?  Have you heard of the ideal gas law?
Calculating “CF” a farce and it is usually done by those who don’t even know the basics of chemistry.  I have taken graduate level chemical kinetics and thermodynamics.  Have you?  When you have, I will be willing to discuss “Carbon footprint calculations”.  Until then, not so much.

Holy Prophet of blah blah blah:
Where did you get your advice on sex, Hollywood?  Your own navel-gazing feelings or thoughts on the subject?  Your high school buddies?  Wow, your right, your way of taking advice is much more enlightened and shows a much greater depth of knowledge.

LH, I don’t have a problem with single parents.  I didn’t get married until I was almost 35 years old, and for a long time it didn’t look like marriage was going to happen for me.  My plan was to adopt a hard-to-place child as a single mother (which I ended up doing in marriage instead).  I didn’t say that families headed by single mothers weren’t real families.  I was challenging a previous post by the troll in which he (or she) asserted that traditionalist Catholics are well known for draining the taxpayer.  I was reflecting his term back to him (with corrected grammar), and I assumed that he was using that term to refer to Catholics who marry and have large families, since that’s what this article is about.  Granted, I shouldn’t have sunk to his level or even bothered to acknowledge his ignorant comments.  But I in no way meant to imply that single mothers can’t be Catholic.  I mainly wanted to point out that the category he is referring to, presumably the same category that this article is also referring to, does not comprise a large demographic of welfare recipients.

@Deb from science and my own experimentation and experiences. I can decide what makes my sex life happy, I don’t need a virgin in a dress to tell me how and when to have it.

And I apologize that it came across that way.  I think it’s great that you adopted.  I greatly admire you for doing it;  even though I had planned to do the same thing, now that I am a parent I don’t know how well I would have handled it on my own.

Holy Prophet is unable to produce the statistics that were requested, so he is taking the easy way out and just spawning off one ignorant comment after another.

Basically everyone’s sex life is unique. What gets a person off is unique and varies, and between consenting adults its none of your business and it certainly isn’t the Pope’s.

I’ll pray to the FSM that you someday realize the same.

@Claire

I grew up in Utah. Mormons def. put their kids on Medicaid and food stamps. The Mormon churches even give you instructions for applying.

Here’s a fun statistic: 98% of Catholic women use “artificial” birth control.

Just maaaaaaybe that should clue you in that your Church’s ban on the pill is nearly as unhinged as its position that masturbation is a mortal sin that sends you to hell.

Just for the record—- every single very large family that I have seen needing social assistance in my rural community has been a married family with a stay home mom and a dad out of a job.  The smaller families are more of a mixed lot—- some mom/dad;  some single moms. 

Second, I have used the carbon footprint calculations (when I’ve done them) provided by my local parish through http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/. 

Third, I find it amusing, but also a little sad,  how defensive people on this list get about their large families.  But basically, you are all first world parents—- having a large family for all intents and purposes can be your hobby.  I have lived in several third world countries in Asia and Latin America and have seen what can happen when people who do not have the contraceptive resources (but do have the fear of God put into them by irresponsible clerics), cannot manage to control family size—- yes even “married” people.  This discussion on this list has boiled down to a lot of relatively privileged people trying to defend their expensive hobbies—- large families.  Go ahead—- have your dozen.  Defend your position all you want in the echo box that is your list.  The issue is bigger than you—- try looking at a woman in Haiti with 18 kids (all from the same husband) who feeds her kids on alternate DAYS to keep them minimally nourished and defend the Catholic position on birth control.  While we’re all waiting on international food policies to be more equitable, I can assure you—- she’d just as soon have had fewer kids.  And you know what?  No matter how low her kids’ carbon footprints are (and they are low I can assure you by any measure), they’d still be MORE than the packaging on a box of condoms. 

So go ahead—- call me a troll for disagreeing with you.  And I’ll call you an ostrich—- and a privileged one at that.

(laughing out loud) You refer to sex as “getting off”, and profess a penchant for masturbation (lol)Bet you’re a fun date Spaghetti boy.

@Anna Lisa I’m female. Yes, women can have an autonomous sex drive! You should tell your priests, bishops, cardinals, and pope some time. They seem to either refuse to acknowledge this fact or absolutely hate it.

Hey Holy blah blah blah
your answer: “@Deb from science and my own experimentation and experiences. I can decide what makes my sex life happy, I don’t need a virgin in a dress to tell me how and when to have it.”
This basically amounts to navel-gazing about your own thoughts and feelings.  How very enlightened of you.

Yes, Deb, me, as an individual, deciding what makes my sex life a happy and satisfying one. How HORRIBLE!

Clearly, I need Papa Ratzi dictating who I do it with, how, and using what methods of birth control. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Holy:  that’s not the statistic I requested.  And what do Mormons have to do with this discussion?

Anna Lisa:  you’re cracking me up.  Thanks for some comic relief.  It helps to ease the nausea that I experience when reading Holy Prophet’s comments about (her?) sex life.

Little surprised and offended that I Have been moderated from this discussion…i can see how my opinion might be of less value than some of the, ee, learned opinions be expressed here today…

lol, either the moderators have a sense of humor, or, with superbowl starting, they figured this conversation cannot go any further ary and they are letting everything through…what I was trying to say in this morning’s post that was moderated was that i, too, am about responsible parenthood. As in, lets make as many babies as god allows us. Many aren’t given that chance and no one has the right to interfere with that choice. However, part of responsible motherhood is responsible fatherhood, too. intact families, regardless of how many children they have usually produce children who contribute to the overall good of humanity. As well as the social security fund that will help support everyone. if they need some help, really isn’t anyone’s business but their own. but it isn’t usually a problem. as far as women who bring children into the world who are drug or alcohol addicted or without adequate medical care, i believe, and so does the catholic church, we should help them. if a child is born addicted or exposed to either, i would love to see them removed immediately from their birth parent so neglect does not further damage them before they get help. we cannot, in the name of hedonism and self indulgence sentence these children to a life of no hope. but we need some changes. limiting children is not the answer. overpopulation is the brain child of margaret sangor and her people who wished for sex without consequences or marriage and a more elite population born…with undersirables weeded out. really, is that what y’all want. makes our pope and his wishes for what ever it was that you think he wants sound pretty good. in short, big families are saving our social security—yours too, and quite possibly America. Enjoy superbowl people…

I am not here to attack anyone personally. I have the greatest admiration for all families and the sacrifices they make to have kids.  Try to be less sensitive.  A stranger online is not trying to attack you personally. I am trying to understand how we all perceive affording kids and the real life challenges of providing for a family.  The term “God provides”  does not mean we all should not take responsibility for the choices we make.

It is only my observation and my world is small and you are not in my world. I don’t know you.  What I observe is large family A with both mom and dad working because dad is self employed and the health insurance is too costly.  Mom goes back to work when the youngest is school aged because they feel strongly that they should provide for their kids rather than go on gov’t funded health insurance.  Mom would much rather continue to stay at home full time and they could easily get gov’t assistance.  It is a burden for her to be working.

Family B believes they have a right to have as many kids as they can biologically conceive.  From the start they did not understand what it meant or took to provide for them and rather than postpone another child for a year or 2 at age 25 and come up with a plan to support their kids they rely on the gov’t.  This is not directed to anyone here.  I do not understand how this is part of church teaching or how families reconcile this.  I am asking a sincere question that relates to how we all live our lives. Why would a young couple not stop and think about this as a moral responsiblity?

What really has given me trouble understanding is when family B proclaims how awful it is when mothers go back to work and that they belong at home.  They have a self righteous rant about smaller families and how they are not really open to life when in fact the small family that has both parents working to provide the basics is funding family B as well.  (This is not me personally..)  People who pay taxes have a right to question the public school system. People who fund medicaid sometimes ask questions about why people use it.  I missed the part in Humanae Vitae that says the gov’t is responsible to provide for our families.

@Holly, just press your refresh button first,you won’t lose what you have written. If it is long it is almost always gets hung up in “spam” mode. Not a human doing it. It will get “dislodged” on Monday.

Dear Spaghetti, no worries sister.  Listen, I do get your frustration, but you are going to go from bad to worse with the “flying solo”.  You probably won’t find anything much better for that “getting off” outlook in a bar or in the secular arena.  God loves you.  He doesn’t want you to be alone or disconnected.  The greatest joy is to find another soul to “sojourn” with you.  Someone who will celebrate you, and endure the rigors of life with you.  We are all “diamonds in the rough”.  We NEED each other to smooth our rough edges.  Don’t discount “Ratzi” so easily.  He (being brilliant in his own way—don’t judge until you read his words) also grasped “the baton” from JP “The Great” who sang a canticle to LOVE for his entire pontificate. Read “Theology of the Body” (beyond sexy) The man loved EVERYBODY—and yes,back to sex—held husbands to the HIGHEST of standards.  Yes, highest.
BTW, thx for the relief from the Superbowl.  My living room is bursting with testosterone.  Somehow I managed (not sure how)to get my very significant lover (not to be confused with “other”) to make the entire buffet!  Granted, he left a mess, but I can’t wait until he puts the kids to bed. Oh yes.

Holy blah blah
Do you know what sex is for?  What is its purpose physically and psychologically?  Have you decided that what you think in feel with regards to sex defines its physical and psychological purpose?  If so, that’s navel-gazing in the extreme.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual intercourse is based on the nature and purpose of sex.  Not on how you, holy prophet of current secular atheism, feel about sex.  Not about how I like MY birth control (and I like no birth control, thank you very much) and my sex. No, instead it is based on the TRUTH about humans and their interaction with each other and the outcome of these interactions.

Money, no one here said it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for large families.  Maybe you should direct your question toward the family in question, instead of implying that we all feel that way.

Defending large families is nowhere near as sad as supporting tax penalties for additional children, or categorizing additional children as a hobby.  Yes, we live in the first world.  So do you, so you have nothing to be self-righteous about.  (And for the record, I’m not defending my large family, because I don’t have one.)

I’m soooo glad that in the final analysis, when I stand before my maker, this life won’t be about how perfectly we managed our IRA,college funds etc.  No wonder people in the US are so far down on the world lists for personal happiness.  Some of the people in this thread would have sent Mary packing with a tongue lashing to get a pregnancy license.  What have we been reduced to?  Just consider all the pharmaceutical drugs people are lining up for now.  Not the American dream, is it…

Beautiful written!
“I believe that every new baby’s Hope Footprint far outweighs his Carbon Footprint.” WOW! those words are so powerful!

I am expecting baby #6 right now.  I don’t get negative comments about my family size.  What I hear are a lot of personal stories from women about how they wanted more children but couldn’t.  More often than not the “couldn’t” was because the husband didn’t want more.

As for the environment, our library has close parking spots reserved for “fuel efficient” vehicles.  I always park there because my minivan is far more efficient on a per person basis in transporting 6 people to the library than a hybrid is in transporting one.

Finally, as for the 98% of Catholics who use birth control as evidence the church is wrong, it is flawed logic.  100% of Catholics sin every single day but that doesn’t mean Catholic teachings on sin and the need for regular confession are wrong and need to be changed.

Good for you Jennifer! A big family is a healthy family, as I think we all understand on an instinctive level. It takes many decades of fear-based propaganda to overcome our common sense. You refuted the typical Malthusian predictions of doom, and cracked open the fashionable pseudo-scientific excuses as well. Arguments from Reason (God’s plan, respect for life, etc) are beyond the capacity of the people who need to hear it the most, as was demonstrated by the commentaries which soon devolved into sex talk. What a rude way to think of a family! A well-run family is an engine of Good, capable of generating saints. Everyone knows our world can use a few more saints. We should all support families who know how to raise Good children. The more the better.

“I’m glad to see that living a green lifestyle has caught on in popular culture.”

I don’t really think this is true. If it were, the average number of square feet per person in families of three or four would be closer to 250 than to 500. There aren’t all that many 1000 square-foot homes on the market, a reality that clearly indicates that the popular culture (where such small families are common) does not, in fact, live anything closely resembling a green lifestyle. People may like to believe they are living a green lifestyle, but facts betray them.

Of course, there is more to understanding national and global population dynamics than learning about Mrs. Fulwiler’s preferences for family size. Please check out the work done by Hans Rosling at http://www.gapminder.org/videos/.

“Or feel like a smaller family size is right for them.”...The Catholic Church teaches that God decides who will be born…He is the Creator.  The parents must keep themselves open to new life and allow God to bring forth these precious souls.  We are not to pick and choose when and how we will have children to fit our lifestyles…St. John Vianney stated that when a mother stands before Almighty God, she will see all the souls of the children she should have had and didn’t…

St. John Vianney was speaking of abortion, not abstaining so you don’t conceive.

i agree with the point about 1st world families.  can someone please respond to this in a thorough, calm manner? 

suppose that the world can sustain twenty times our current population.  i think that kind of guessing game doesn’t get us anywhere, but let’s just say the planet can theoretically sustain a huge number of people that we’re still a very long time away from hitting. 

even if that were true, which i’m only offering for the sake of discussion, shouldn’t a christian family in a highly industrialized country consider the implications of bringing in a large number of children into this *situation* rather than the world writ large?? 

the ripple effects of a new american baby are like a tidal wave, in terms of resources, compared with a third world baby. 

i just don’t see anyone upthread taking this thought seriously from the “overpopulation is a myth” side of the discussion.  because, the thing is, overpopulation isn’t a myth.  we’re already overpopulated, insofar as some of us have all the resources (go look in a mirror) and others of us—1/3 of the population—are living in poverty.  overpopulation pertains not to the globe (yet), but to the distribution of resources on the globe.  it is that fundamental truth which socially and economically conservative people aren’t very fond of admitting to themselves—that their lifestyles are incompatible with charity, with compassion for humanity.  sure, maybe we’re nice to each other, polite, tame, interested in our little ethical questions… but this is all gravy.  humanity is doing so hot out there, and none of us is doing a heck of a lot about that.  making babies—HERE—in fact directly exacerbates that problem, especially babies that are almost certain to turn out economically and socially conservative. 

is that really, truly irrelevant? 

what are you doing in the states apart from living more comfortably than anyone in the history of the world has ever imagined and making babies that will surely value the same way you do?

Sara:  when you assert that conservatives have lifestyles that are incompatible with charity and compassion, it’s probably unrealistic to expect a calm response.

Ok, not only do we not have too many people, we have specufically too few women left to nature, we end up with an aporoxumately equal male/female ratio. With ultrasounds and sexselectdd abortions we have skewed the ratio in favor of men. Causes many oroblems we are already seeing such as rape, crimes against poor women, turning women into commodities, and wars.

Please everyone vote Rick Santorum.

I teach in the School of Business at a University.  In my “Personal Finance” class, I dedicate one class period to the topic:  The Case for Children.
Here’s the lecture notes:  http://goo.gl/rJXZf

I’ll be using Jennifer’s article in my reading list next year.  I love the idea of the Hope Footprint being so much bigger than the Carbon Footprint!

So, let’s “overpopulate.”  And their problem is???

My Queen and I have seven children, 20-45 and fifteen grandchildren (last, Ayre = 3 weeks young).

We’re not counting!!

Phil & Sandra Ferguson, O.P./Lay
Boise, ID

Why don’t you adopt a child that would possibly be aborted, rather than have another one?  What is wrong with taking on someone elses kids that otherwise would have no hope? I’ve taught in city schools that most people wouldn’t even drive near, let alone ever walk into and I can tell you first hand that this is a very real child that is being brought into this world. This seems a very selfish way in my opinion.

I love this article, but am concerned about those that feel people with large families should for go having children and adopt “a child that would possibly be aborted.” Have any of those advocating for adopting ever looked at the adoption law and restrictions in this country. Many states have restrictions on the numbers of children a family is allowed to have and still adopt. Many have square footage requirements for adoption. I personally looked into adoption and would gladly take in any child to save them from abortion or even from a life in foster care, but alas the home I have is not technically large enough for the children I have let alone to take in more according to the gov’t. The law seems to feel that it is more important for a child to have sq.footage than a family that would love them. People not adopting children makes no difference if the state wouldn;t let them adopt anyway. How many families with one or two children can adopt and don’t. The arguement that people should adopt and not have their own children is completely without merit coming from anyone that has not adopted their legal limit and has no biological children by choice, not infertility.

And those saying having a large number of children is selfish must not have spent much time with the parents of large families. Having a large family the most selfish thing I want is five minutes in the bathroom without interruption.

To those concerned with money, a new baby in our house costs about $3000 the first year, half of which was delivery, a quarter is diapers, and the rest is babysitting,replacement clothes and odds and ends. The diapers portion does not add to our budget because the diapers are no longer going to the two year old that is potty training. After the first year, our kids only cost about $2400 for food and replacement clothes since we use hand-me-downs. My kids don’t have private lessons or play every sport, but when asked if they would rather do those things and travel to fun places or have a new baby in the house, all of my kids wanted the new baby. And for the record they are all boys.

Jared, if you read the comments, you’ll see that there are people here who have adopted.  There’s no shortage of people who want to adopt, but unfortunately that doesn’t stop people from aborting.

claire - i suggested two things about politically and economically conservative folks: that they tend to be apathetic about the question i posed, which in fact received no response, and that increasing the numbers of such people is a special strain on the world, because of their apathy. 

but you didn’t read me carefully.  conservatives are americans.  they are, in my opinion, more likely to not think through the implications of their lifestyles and how their dollar effects the world (or their reproductive habits) because they are focused on conserving values that they feel are beyond reproach. 

but more important than their beliefs, by far, is simply that they are americans.  the same critique holds for liberally minded americans.  the critique is that this country, which accounts for less than 1/20th of the world population, is greedy, opulent, consumer-crazy and generally full of folks spending dollars in a way that is completely disconnected from the effects of those transactions.

i don’t suppose i would find much disagreement from the BXVI.

Large families don’t hold a monopoly on selfless kids, nor on vocations;
I’ve seen many large families with not a single vocation, and wasn’t
Father Hardon an only child?  Furthermore, people shouldn’t assume that
parents of small families are using birth control.

More people could adopt if it wasn’t so freaking hard and expensive to do so…some people have waited for years to adopt a baby from right here in their own country.  If anything, the process ought to be simplified.

Liz, good points. Both the current and previous popes were from families
of only 3 children,(if I remember correctly).

Sara, I do agree with some of your characterization of America.  Especially the part about consumerism.  You’re right;  I thought you were specifically targeting conservatives;  it didn’t “click” that you were talking about Americans in general.  I am not fond of the amount of greed in our culture.  But I see material and consumer greed as something completely different than having a large family.  I apologize for misunderstanding your post.  I think that one reason for the lack of response is that this is a relatively old thread, and most of the initial participants have moved on.  Anyway, I hope you have a good weekend.

Congrats!

We were gifted with ten, nine still with us and one in Heaven. I am more direct than my wife. I tell the person who says anything impolite about how son # 5 asked for a baby sister [we had one girl and six sons at the time] after evening prayers on night. I told him we were open to children and if our Lord sends a child and it is a girl, he is changing diapers. The next night he asked for twins. Soon, we were expecting and there were complications as the twin girls were born early, both under 2 lbs each. I asked for the intercession of Fr. Solanus Casey of Detroit.

The “Catholic hospital” tried to offer us “healing touch (tm)” where someone would “balance the energy field.” My older brother, a doctor advised me that there was a 30% chance of them surviving. Although we understood how some families would be desperate and try anything to help their children we refused as we new this was New Age and trusted in our Lord.

FYI- “healing touch (tm) is a Reiki -type activity which is not allowed by Holy Mother Church - see Jesus Christ, Bearer of the Water of Life and the USCCB has called Reiki-type activity incompatible with Christianity in GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY]

In two days, my wife called from the hospital early in the morning [I was shuttling back and forth to the hospital while caring our other 7 children] that our first born of the twins, the 1 lb 6 oz daughter was not going to live much longer. I sped to the hospital and baptized at 6am and went to Heaven. We were permitted to hold her in the last hour as she had been in the NICU unit.

Not wanting to wait for baptism for the second of the twins [1 lb 9 oz] we set the time for later that day at 3 pm. this time, I was able to bring water from Lourdes. The godmother called a day later excited about the picture: there was a bright white light above our surviving baby daughter.  Although our baby was in the hospital for a few more months and on oxygen a bit longer, today the Head NICU unit nurse tells us “She should not be here and be a perfect as she is with no defects.”
What we considered a miracle was reported to Fr. Liam in Lourdes and Br.Leo up in Detroit.
Most people who here this give up with their impolite thoughts and more than one has said, especially the non-Catholics “That story sends shivers up my spine.”
If they wish to persist, I tell them the story of the 7th son and tenth child, the baby blanket from the Padre Pio’s National Centre touched to his blood and gloves and how the delivery doctor after learning that we asked for Padre Pio’s intercession turned around and smiled [in 2007] and remarked “my elderly mother was just cured through his intercession from terminal disease!”
God Bless. Today, that daughter and I assisted at Holy Mass to thank Our Lady of Lourdes - Deo Gratias!

For the sake of fairness:

Are natural family planning education courses covered in the health mandate? How about a credit for $600 per year for those services for people who want to go that route? (so crazy, I know, but I think they still exist somewhere!)

As a mother of 8, I heartily agree that we are “greener” than most people with 2.  We eat out much less, we use less gas despite our 12-passenger van simply because we don’t get out as often.  We homeschool, which saves tremendously on wasted school excess found in public schools, such as textbooks hardly used, computers for every child, etc. We rarely buy new clothes, shopping at consignment stores, and of course, making good use of hand-me-downs. We have chickens and a garden, hang clothes on outdoor to dry, and “make do” with less in many other respects. When people tell me the world is changing and raising a large family isn’t “the thing to do” anymore, I say the world is changing precisely because there are less big families.  And it isn’t changing for the better.

Sara, please read up on the coming “demographic winter”.  Your science is dangerous for the cursory reader because you mix up truth with incendiary falsehoods.  *Yes*, first world hyper consumerism is *disgusting*.  *No*, a first world child is NOT the equivalent of a consumption “*tidal wave*”  When did pregnancy and the child become the disease? Selfishness, greed, and people who refuse to acknowledge that EVERY child is “carved on his creator’s hand”, is the PROBLEM. Not only is this child infinitely and eternally precious, but Jesus would *die* to save *that one child*...that *one single child*, because all created matter in the material order is *nothing* compared to *the child* (you), made in the image and likeness of GOD.  I’m hoping you can understand your own intrinsic beauty, and sublime worth.

@Michael, beautiful story of grace, and blessings. Thank you!

Birthing a human being means birthing an entity that now faces the possibility of eternal suffering if it doesn’t believe or do the right things. Think about that.

To “R”: Your view of birth seems to focus on a negative possibility (that of a human being going to Hell), yet even this possibility is rooted in our freedom as humans.  What would be a preferable alternative to this freedom—our being robots? 

Ultimately, in terms of Heaven or Hell, isn’t this the choice that we face every day, in each one of our moral choices?  For or against goodness?  For or against God?

Then again, if you don’t believe in God… then why even mention Hell here as a reason for not having children?

Right on, Jennifer!  As a mother of 13 (3 are with Our Lord), I truly get tired of dealing with the “helpful” people who ask the “are you done now?” types of questions, including “you do know how it works, don’t you?” types.  However, when you sweetly tell them that you’ve been blessed to have so many & then say that you & your husband are open to how many God wants you bless you with, then that usually causes a sheepish affirmation of the pro-life,pro-family stance on the inquirers part.
Also, I totally agree with you- who knows what the later children (or any, for that matter) will do for God & the world?  I am glad that you& many, many others are excited about those possibilities. :)

Christopher Lake,

Your reply misses the point of my comment. The question of free will is irrelevant to my central contention, namely, our belief in heaven and hell needs to inform our attitude towards reproduction.

If you believe in the possibility of eternal punishment, then you must, perforce, acknowledge that birthing a human being, whose ultimate fate will either be eternal beatitude or eternal suffering, is a profoundly questionable activity given the grave risk involved.

When we reproduce, we create a being that could face eternal perdition. So is it moral to assume that risk?

R, have you considered that God himself considered the “grave risk” you pose, and considered the chance of our happiness to outweigh the chance of our perdition, as evidenced by his loving creation and entrustment of our own fate? Why should we not trust God’s loving design when he shows his love time and time again to all who don’t deny it? Do you pretend to be wiser than God eternal who knows all and created all?

Hi Cephas,

Because I pose questions doesn’t mean I think I’m wiser than God. I’m, in fact, seeking wisdom by asking questions.

My question is if it’s moral to even make that cost-benefit analysis when the possibility of eternal loss is in play.

For my part, having children was the biggest mistake of my life. Call me selfish, but having to sacrifice what I thought was going to be an extraordinary life due to an unplanned pregnancy (BC failure)has driven me to the pits of depression for many years. All I can think of is all the missed opportunities.
Children (any number!) are not for everyone. 
I am not Catholic, or really anything.  But I do know “Judge not, lest you be judged.”  IMHO, there is a lot of judgement going on here.  I don’t think anyone should have to defend their lifestyle choices, nor should they have to defend the decisions they made when stuck between a rock and a hard place.

R, eternal loss is a choice made by each individual. But yes, the possibility of eternal happiness is worth that risk.

Wishing Otherwise, I’m sorry to hear about your extraordinary life possibilities you feel wasted. “Judge not” is often brought up, but seldom understood in context. There’s also “Judge with right judgement.” and “If your brother sins, rebuke him.” I wonder if you might not find anything at all you like about having children. You suggest some might call you selfish. Selfishness does severely limit our enjoyment of life. For when we give and think of others and making them happy, it makes us happy in turn. Of course, I don’t know if you’re selfish or not. You would know that best. But I can recommend thinking more of others and so discovering the awesome life you have, that you didn’t plan, but God knows what he’s giving you. As for me, my oldest was completely unplanned, but totally loved. And she changed my life. I love it!

Great article- thank you!

We only have one baby (so far) and I agree with Claire above… I have several friends who have many children (6, 8, 9 kids) and I’m always in awe of how they resourceful their families are.

I roomed with someone in college who was from a family of 10 kids and I come from a family of 2 kids. I was used to always having lots of things, space, my own bathroom, new clothes, my own car, lots of tv/computer time, etc. This roommate was so generous, selfless, helpful, and could happily survive on SO much less than I ever thought I could. She taught me a lot about the beauty of living simplier and being resourceful, generous, and spending more quality time with people (and not things).

Liz, I totally relate to what you’re saying.  Growing up, I had only one sibling.  Having to share a room in college was a huge adjustment, as was marriage.  I was so used to having my own space.  I still struggle with these issues.  My husband is also an introvert, but as one of six children, he did not have the adjustment issues to marriage that I had.

Cephas,

You think it’s worth the risk, but is it moral to impose that risk on a creature, whether it’s God or a parent?

Eternal suffering, Cephas, ETERNAL!

“Impose” the risk is a tortured way of speaking. All of life involves some risk, but without risk there is no choice, no heroism, no sanctity. If everybody was forced to do good, there would be no love, only cold duty. God saw fit to give us life with risk. and I do not think he’s done poorly.

Cephas,

Those who were brought into the realm of existence - without any say in the matter - and happened to believe the wrong things and behave in the wrong ways and having since passed away would probably disagree with your overly sanguine statement.

Think about it: would you ever take a gamble on a bet if you stood to lose everything and lose it forever, regardless of what you would gain if you won? Seriously. Think about it in the most practical way, as if you actually had to put money down on a risk like that.

It’s simple: when you REPRODUCE you create an entity that could end up being tormented for ETERNITY.

Are you saying God did wrong to give us that possibility?
When you step into a car, you risk serious accident. When you eat, you risk food born illness. When you walk outside, you risk being mugged or randomly beaten. This risk analysis you make doesn’t make much sense. Yes, there is a risk. Yes, it is well worth it. Do you avoid all risk?

Cephas,

You’re really having trouble understanding my point, huh?

Nutshell: is it moral to create an entity that could face eternal loss?

Simple as that.

All those examples of risk you make are absurd in comparison to the singularity of ETERNAL suffering!

Any gamble that involves infinite loss is not worth taking; by extension, its immoral to impose that gamble on an entity.

This has been inspired by the ‘Overpopulation is a Myth’ brigade full of religious, political and superstitious propaganda to justify the rape and devastation of the planet caused by humans. Well to throw the Bible back in their hypocritical faces here’s a couple of quotes “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth…for it repenteth me that I have made them.” Genesis, Chapter 6.7
“They shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Hosea 9.16
“For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Luke 23.29 STOP MAKING BABIES Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/101910558810/ And the Catholics wiped out the Cathars of course, the true Christians. It’s all to do with power, control and domination.

I really commend that your large family is able to save resources and be mindful of it! I am a newlywed in my 20s and plan to have 2 biological children, but if we have the income and resources to have more, we plan to adopt. Given that the population is already 7 billion and there are so many children without loving homes, do you think adoption will become an option for other families who have a lot of love to provide, and also know how to be mindful of resources? Unfortunately, most of the families I knew with more than 3 children seemed to be very wasteful with resources, so it’s great to read an article like this!

OH GREAT, WONDERS SHALL NEVER END, I READ ALOT OF TESTIMONIES ON TOPIX.COM ON HOW BECOME BECAME WEALTHY THROUGH KUDIRI NATIVE POT, THIS POT IS A SPIRITUAL POT THAT MAKE YOU A MILLIONAIRE OVER NIGHT, WHEN I READ THE TESTIMONIES I WAS THINKING IT CAN,T HAPPEN.. I QUICKLY PICK THE PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF DR RICH.. EXPLAIN MY SITUATION AND HE PREPARE THE KUDIRI NATIVE POT AND ASK ME TO INDICATE THE CURRENCY I WANT,IN 1 DAY I START MAKING UP TO 9000DOLLARS A DAY, IS REAL THIS POT MAKE ME A MILLIONAIRE YOU CAN CONTACT DR RICH AT TEMPLEOFMONEY@LIVE.CA AND BECOME A MILLIONAIRE TODAY, REALLY MANY HAVE TESTIFY!!!