Results 1 to 5 of 30
May 13th, 2013 11:11 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
What would make you have more children?
I finished a sociology class a few weeks ago and it was really interesting. One of the things we studied was population growth and decline and how one of the problems facing Western developed countries is a below replacement birthrate. I hadn't been aware of this I had always heard that the world was overpopulated. But we went over some of the ways governments have tried to boost birthrates throughout history and what they are currently trying to do. So I was curious, for all of you who only have one or two children or are planning to only have one or two children, what would make you have more kids?
Longer paid mat leaves? Pregnancy leaves (so you don't have to work throughout)? Baby bonus checks? Financial support to help you be a SAHM? Government funded or better insurance coverage for fertilty treatments or surrogancy? More affordable or better quality childcare? More birth options( such as elective c-sections)? Tummy tucks and lipo afterwards?
Obviously not all are realistic but in an ideal world what would entice you to have more children?
May 13th, 2013 11:23 PM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
- Humboldt, California
There are SO many children without homes. I've been considering adoption more and more, especially adoption through foster care. I think I want one, maybe two bio kids. Then adopt 2 or 3 kids.
Another thing to consider about population growth. The US at least has a large immigrant population. Even if people aren't having babies here, there are people coming here.
I don't get why the US has such a low standard for maternity (and paternity) leave. 12 weeks unpaid leave? Really?Proud furmom to:
Pepper, Kuno, Mia, Rosalind, Gwendolen & Cecily
Elysia Maeve~Marina Isolde~Linnea Violetta~Minerva Sophronia~Merida Ianthe~Eleni Finola
Tiernan Hugo~Felix Lysander~Orion Casimir~Caspian Milo~Evander Anslem~Leonidas Gavin
Cosima Helene & Emrys Jasper
May 13th, 2013 11:31 PM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Los Angeles
Maybe if I didnt have to be pregnant. I hate it!
But otherwise, I would say longer maternity leave, more options to make being a SAHM possible, and tummy tucks all sound pretty ideal.
We're stopping because we are big travelers and it's just easier to afford with less children.
Really, it comes down to money.Mama to ~Rowan Josephine 1/12~
and ~Teagan Dahlia~ 5/13~
May 14th, 2013 02:08 AM #7
I do want kids, so I don't really need to be persuaded myself; I've experienced a family dynamic where there were lots of extended family nearby and one where it was essentially just mom-dad-brother-me, and because I liked being able to regularly interact with more close family members, I definitely want more than two kids (ideally, I'll have four). I'd certainly feel more comfortable if there were less obstacles for fathers to be active and involved parents, but in the professional world, there seem to be fewer allowances for that. Meanwhile, mothers get the time-off "perks," but it's often at the expense of their careers. I'd like to see a better balance, personally, and it would definitely make me feel less wary about how I'm going to handle things when I have children...because the options available to my future family, right now, are designed with very specific and narrow mother/father roles in mind; I would have more facility to stay home, I'm sure, but I also know that that doesn't come without professional ramifications. And, you know, it shouldn't, but neither should fathers generally be given less opportunity to take leave, as well.
Honestly, I'd be really bothered by the offering of financial support for SAHMs if that option for support was not also extended to SAHDs. I don't want to be shunted out of the workforce because I'm the only one who can get significant (or any) parental leave or I'm the only one who would get support to stay at home. And it bothers me even more that that would mean that my children's father would have less of an opportunity to spend time with them. This is totally my soapbox thing, but when people talk about the problem of how the government/places of employment don't do enough to support families, it always seems to be framed in terms of "how can we get moms to be able to spend more time at home?" It's a noble idea, but it's extremely problematic, too.on my mind, for the moment
Daria | Athena | Ramona | Winifred | Maeve | Blythe | Nadine | Dorothea | Margot | Cyra | Renata | Hypatia | Junia | Thisbe
Flynn | Otto | Winston | Claude | Leif | Roald | Tavish | Lionel | Cormac | Tobin | Oswin | Rory | Damon | Tycho
Mildred "Red" ☆ Obedience "Bede" ☆ Relief "Leafy" ☆ Dorothea "Doro" ☆ Penelope "Pen" ☆ Ruth "Rue" ☆ Eudoxia "Exie"
May 14th, 2013 02:29 AM #9
Birth rates are dropping in western countries (America, Australia, etc), but rising in under-developed countries. I know the government wants us to have "one for mum, one for dad, and one for Australia". My husband and I are planning on having three children, but I understand why many people want to have only one or two (or none at all). In Australia, we get eighteen weeks paid parental leave, which is pretty good. Children are very expensive! I daresay it's a money issue for a lot of people. Private school fees, new car when you have more than two children (three car seats are difficult to fit into the average sedan), costs of after-school activities, etc. Maybe if some of those expenses were subsidised, people would be more inclined to have more children.Baby girl due on June 20, 2016
Alice - Beatrix - Clara - Daphne - Jane - Lydia - Susannah - Violet
August - Darcy - Everett - Frederick - George - Henry - James - Rupert