Big families?

In my culture back then it was normal to have huge families and anything lower than 8 was considered small… :surrender

So long as

  1. they dont mooch off the govt
  2. are self sufficient (like the dugger folk)
  3. dont make it into a cult

im a-ok with that… that dude must be a very fertil guy lol and that womans vag must double as a shelter for winter time sheesh!

I’ll ask my father which of his siblings he’d like to do away with so we don’t have to feed, clothe, or waste our resources on them.

that’s ridiculous.

[quote=“AnitaBeer, post: 1090446”]The families support their kids…not the rest of the world. You are trying to stem two completely different things together.

Families get food from the store, food that is left over is donated to the food bank, food that is left over from the food bank is donated to people in other countries. If families take more food from the store, less is donated to the food bank, and less is donated to people in other countries. And so on.

Having 18 kids has nothing to do with donating to countries whether it be ours or another.

You may see it that way, but I don’t. I see everything as inter-connected, doing this, can cause effect to this.

There are still going to be other people who donate to that type of cause.

Yes, but there is going to be less to donate.

The numbers are so small on families that are that large it doesn’t even put a dent into such things. And if I gather what you are saying is that you’d rather people worry about others before they worry about themselves? Sorry that just won’t happen.
[/quote]

Not first, but maybe at the same time or right after?

[quote=“Jersey, post: 1090454”]I’ll ask my father which of his siblings he’d like to do away with so we don’t have to feed, clothe, or waste our resources on them.[/quote]take things personal much? lol

she just said having huge families is irresponsible and a waste of resources… I have a huge family, so why shouldn’t I take it personally?

I’m not sure how having 18 kids stops us from sending other people see packets.

And this

Because the world can’t afford for them to have 18 kids. They might be able to buy all that food, but now the left overs won’t be there because they bought them all, and nothing will be donated to aid in our countries and other countries.

makes it sound like you’re taking about food.

[quote=“Anie, post: 1090450”]How it irresponsible when it was done by choice, when they provide for the kids in the family, when they give them love and the proper care which is needed, parents with a huge amount of kids aren’t all bad and don’t make them sound to be that way…
[/quote]

I didn’t say big families didn’t take care of their kids, I said it’s bad for the world, and like Dana said, it’s bad for us too.

[quote=“Sneakiecat, post: 1090459”]I’m not sure how having 18 kids stops us from sending other people see packets.

We end up sending less because of big families.

makes it sound like you’re taking about food.[/quote]

It’s called an example.

If families take more food from the store, less is donated to the food bank, and less is donated to people in other countries.

Should we all buy less groceries then? And I don’t know about where you live, but the food banks here don’t have enough food for people here, let only other countries.

It’s a part of life, it also made you feel like anywhere you can go in the community I grew up in like home, everyone knew one another, treated each other respectfully and with dignity. At least from a positive point of view of it, there are negatives as always.

Large families strengthen the economy as well as the soul. The greatest economic crisis facing the United States and most industrialized nations is that we have too few large, stable families rather than too many of them. As populations age, live detached lives and live longer (while fewer children are born to work, care for their own and pay taxes), economies decline, crime and social problems increase, and governments cannot fund their welfare entitlements, which in this country are the black holes of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
An added benefit is large families generally provide a sophisticated extended family network, where children have access to many positive role models. One-child societies do not have aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters. Children excel in school when supported by parents, older siblings, grandparents and aunts and uncles who are experts in their respective fields. Extended family members also provide work and career opportunities. Many extended families are so skilled and organized that they can effectively home-school their young, providing additional savings to the taxpayer.

I said it was KIND OF irresponsible and it is a waste of our resources. It’s a waste when you don’t need it, and you don’t need a big family.

Well if I had a smaller family, we wouldn’t need as many groceries, so I am suggesting we should have smaller families to buy less groceries.

My point exactly.

:homo:

Ever stop to think of genocide? Disease? Government? Politics? Oh wait… blame huge families… makes sense :thumbdown

I beg to differ. YOU don’t need a huge family, because you don’t have one. Like I said, mine is huge… and I NEED every last one of them. It’s not irresponsible in the least. Everyone of us is a productive member of society and don’t require any help from you thankyouverymuch.

But your example doesn’t make sense. My family eating enough for ten people has no effect on aid that gets sent oversea. Food that we send overseas is surplus to begin with and not leftovers that have been hanging around grocery stores and food banks.

Also another thing to add, the younger generation these days are basically screwed with taxes since we’re the ones who have to take care of the baby boomers and so forth when they are older, a bigger population would help a lot better in the long run…

How is that your point exactly? What my family consumes has no reflection on what aid is sent to other countries…