Six children in one family: Should that be considered child abuse?

[Poppyseedman]

A theoretically question. No actual physical abuse.

Two parents, six children, one house, 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms.

Moderate income, enough to meet basic needs, no need for government programs.

My wife and I heard a commentary on TV tell us three children was a large family.

How about six children?

[Spiffarino]

1. No.

n/t

[treestar]

2. Uh, no.

Many a family of prior generations had that many kids.

They turned out more OK than kids today, who come from much smaller families.

[treestar]

3. Uh, no.

Many a family of prior generations had that many kids.

They turned out more OK than kids today, who come from much smaller families.

[razors edge]

4. No. Mattress Abuse. n/t

[Deja Q]

Yes. It's not pro-family.

Parents with 1 or 2 children are typically stressed out by children... just being children.

Multiply all that stress by three.

Our planet already has 6 billion miracles. There is nothing wrong with some people NOT breeding.

[Poppyseedman]

9. So it's planet abuse?

[patrice]

57. That assumes everyone is exactly alike and no one does anything

to enlighten others or to solve problems, environmental or otherwise.

This planet couls sustain everyone, plus more, if we lived differently. It's not so much how many of us there are, but what we do, how much we consume, and how we live our lives.

[evlbstrd]

13. I'm from a family of six kids.

My parents (my mother is now dead) always said they wouldn't change a thing. And we kids had no complaints. Not pro-family? Give me a break.

[Common Sense Party]

62. "Yes," it's child abuse? How incredibly obtuse of you.

There is nothing wrong with some people NOT breeding, true, but that was not the question.

The point is, there's nothing wrong with some people breeding, so long as they take care of their families.

[rurallib]

5. As the third of 3 I got plenty of abuse from 1&2.

Ithink ol' Mother earth wouldn't mind seeing a few less.

[babylonsister]

6. I come from a family w/ 5 kids and one bathroom. I cannot tell

you how many times I heard, "Are you reading/writing 'War and Peace' in there?"
But it worked.

[unsavedtrash]

7. no n/t

[evlbstrd]

8. No.

Oldest of six, here.

[Xipe Totec]

10. You're describing my family

and that of my extended family.

I have 64 first cousins. My extended family numbers in the hundreds.

Abuse? For the neighbors around us, perhaps, because we were a force to be reckoned with.

But for us, growing up was an absolute blast.

[Poppyseedman]

17. 64 first cousins?

Don't tell me your are Chinese and your last name is "chin"

[Xipe Totec]

22. Guess again

If anything, I'd say we're the United Nations since I have relatives from all ethnic origins.

Though, primarily, we are Hispanic and Roman Catholic.

My great grandfather on my mother's side married seven times. We are still trying to put together a complete roster of his descendants.

[Poppyseedman]

24. He married seven times. ?

Wow, he must have been quite the man.

Seriously, that is quite an accomplishment.

[Xipe Totec]

37. Yup,

Here he is at about age 20. His life reads like a novel. Someday, I'll sit down and write it. Just to give you a taste of it, he was negotiating the release of my grandfather from prison, while he himself was in a separate prison. Both jailed on suspicion of collaborating with revolutionaries during the Mexican Revolution.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. I have that many first cousins too.

Cast of thousands in my family. Both parents came from big families and they and many of their sibs had 6+ kids. If it weren't for the ones who didn't reproduce the number could easily have been 100 first cousins. It's a different story in my mate's family where all of the extended clan would fit in a couple of minivans.

[Xipe Totec]

50. I had the chance to meet all of them growing up

Thanks to my parent's diligence.

And yes, the later generations have adjusted to the realities of overpopulation by raising smaller families.

When you raise a smaller family you increase the chances of survival for each child, but you also give them fewer allies. These are tough choices.

[Nicole]

11. No

Their needs are being met so where is the abuse?

I would not want six kids but some people do.

[Horse with no Name]

I don't understand why this would be abuse?

I can't quite grasp the concept of what people don't understand as being pro-choice.
Choice works TWO ways.
Just like I am not going to tell someone NOT to have an abortion if that is what is right for them, I am not going to tell someone NOT to have a child if that is what is right for them.
Why can't we just be the "Mind your own business" party?

[Retired AF Dem]

39. Wouldnt it be nice if people could just mind their own business?

I'm the oldest of six. Three boys and three girls. Middle class family and we are all doing fine.

[smokey nj]

40. Greg. Greg Brady, is that you?...

just kidding!!!

[walldude]

12. Abuse? No.. but I question the sanity of anyone

having children after their third. I tried to stop at 2 but after my divorce I met a wonderful lady with a little boy and now I have 3. My sanity hangs on by a thread ;)

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. I was raised one of seven...

...and we had a bath-and-a-half. Dad was a schoolteacher. We did fine. No one ever died from hand-me-downs, or vacations relying heavily on state and national parks, or the public library. Two doctorates, two masters, all of us gainfully employed and raising families of our own.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Child abuse? LOL!

I don't even understand the premise.

[smokey nj]

16. I'm one of six children, two aunts and a cousin also lived with

us and we only had one bathroom. I didn't feel particularly abused and I came out of it with amazing bladder control.

[Xithras]

18. Is this a trick question? No.

I'm one of six. While my childhood wasn't exactly a walk in the park, my problems had more to do with an abusive babysitter than anything my parents did.

[Poppyseedman]

21. No, it's not a trick question.

My wife commented on a TV commentator that stated three kids was a large family, We thought that was a ludicrous statement.

I find it interesting that mothers with only one kid seem to have a hard time dealing with just one and mothers with "large" families, larger than three seem to have a much better grasp on controlling their children and raising them

Just an observation

[hedgehog]

42. Maybe it's the other way around.

Mothers who have trouble controlling one child recognize their limits and stop there. Mothers with large families don't make it unless they have some control.

[Xithras]

51. My personal opinion on that.

IMO, that has to do with the way mothers deal with their children. My experience is that single children tend to get doted on. Because they are an only child, the parents often end up focusing on minute details of the child's life simply because they CAN. While this may arguably be good for the child, it can be stressful to parents who end up micromanaging every aspect of their young child's life.

In contrast, parents with multiple children usually end up taking a higher level view of their children's life. A "Don't sweat the small stuff" mentality sets in, and the children end up being a bit more independent and set their own routine. This results in less stress over each individual child.

Any parent with multiple kids should be able to confirm this. I know that when my wife and I had baby #1, we jumped and ran to her rescue every time she whimpered or fell, and spent countless hours planning and acting out this activity or that for her benefit. She was scrubbed after every meal, her outfits were always cute, folded away, and wrinkle free, and we ran her to the doctor every time she so much as sneezed. We were focused on her so much that being a parent seemed like a full time job.

By the time baby #3 showed up, that had all changed. When he falls, we tell him to brush it off or wait until he's down a moment before worrying. And playtime? We don't waste our time planning hours of "educational" games anymore, it's Tonka trucks and water fights in the backyard now. And baths? As long as he's washed once a day, we're happy. We don't sweat the details anymore which makes parenting less stressful.

And here's the funny part. My youngest was recently assessed to attend the same preschool his older brother and sister attended. His scores, which measured basic cognitive ability, speaking ability, and general knowledge, were no different than those of his older siblings (he actually speaks better at his age than his older brother did at the same age).

[Chulanowa]

19. Not at all

If the children are cared for, I see no issue with cranking any number out.

More food for the cougars that way.

[Blue Belle]

20. No... are you kidding me?

I grew up in a family of seven children, two parents, one house , 3 bedrooms, one bathroom. We may not have been the richest family... but it was no means child abuse. My brother has seven children now... and his children are the best behaved and well adjusted children I have ever seen. Whether you have one child or twelve... child abuse is determined by the parents.

[azurnoir]

23. No, not really

By today's standards though (who the hell sets them anyway) a kid who shares a bedroom with a sibling or siblings is "underprivileged". I have 4 kids ages 28 to 9, if you raise kids with everything we as parents are told they are "owed" know what you often get- kids that think they are "owed" everything.

[fairfaxvadem]

25. ha, try 3 bedrooms and 1 bath

And 6 kids. My folk added on an addition for their bedroom and another full bath, but still, that was added on to a 1200 sf house. Then we moved to the "new" standard of the 4 br 2.5 ba colonial in the late 60s, 2100 sf. Was like a mansion to us back then.

It's not abuse. It's just cramped living.

[DawgHouse]

26. No, that's ridiculous!

[seabeyond]

27. mind your own business. PLEASE WORLD, just friggin let people

be

[femmocrat]

28. If you are referring to the Santorum family, it could be

considered PA-taxpayer abuse! Afterall, we had to pay to cyber-school all the little Santorums.

[efhmc]

29. I think that it is sexism at it's supreme best. Women as baby factories.

If you want large families and you truly love children and are able to mold their lives and make them good people, then please take some of the millions of children in this world that have no family, no home and no hope.

[Poppyseedman]

33. You do realize some women want large families.

Nobody forces them to have children.

Also you do realize how difficult and expensive it is to adopt children from other parts of the world.

...unless of course, you are a rich famous beautiful celebrity

[efhmc]

35. You do realize that women are programed by many societies and

religions they grow up in to think of themselves one dimensionally and to not think beyond reproduction as a form of their own self worth. You do realize that the world is overpopulated and ones own desire to have a "large family" is selfish beyond belief. You do realize that there are absolutely TONS of children right here in the good old USofA who want and need good parents and one does not need to be wealthy to be a parent to these children.

[Xipe Totec]

47. I'll ask my mother which of her children

she wishes she'd never had, if she had a choice.

The philosopher?
The socialite daughter?
The industrialist millionaire?
The Marine veteran?
The Genius?
The Gay activist?

For the record, nobody tells my mother what to do. She has always done what she wants, when she wants. Neither my father, nor her present husband, nor any of her children.

[efhmc]

41. I did a google search of adoption of older children in the US and got

close to a 8 million hits. Love children and large families? Here is your chance to make a difference.

[hedgehog]

54. That's a great statement.

Years ago women were sterilized lest they produce the "wrong" children (Wrong race, metally or physically handicapped). Now you want women to voluntarily give up their fertility to care for all the "surplus" children. Some are drawn to adopt children. Others would rather bear their own. There is room for all kinds of families.

[hedgehog]

45. I think it's rather insulting that you think of women with many

children as baby factories. That statement is only one step up from the rather crude speculations I've seen about the physical condition of any woman who dares to have more than the "acceptable" 2.2 children. Having children should be a matter of choice. Some of us seem suited for no children, others for a few, others for many.

[seabeyond]

46. i think they are pretty offensive posts too. i think the intent of the

is to offend.

[SharonAnn]

30. I'm from a family of eight kids, I have 66 first cousins (I think).

Of course that all says that my generation was the "Baby Boom" and that my family was Roman Catholic.

Our childhood was good, but I'm not so sure how doable that is today. Depends on the family, I suppose.

[woo me with science]

31. Yeah, let's legislate family size, too....

right along with outlawing smoking in their homes and deciding what they can and can't eat.

[Cleita]

32. I come from a generation where that wasn't unusual.

I was an only child and that was really rare then. I went to school (Catholic school) where families were normally four to even ten kids, but more likely six to eight. Most of my classmates lived in two or three bedroom, 1 bath homes. Most had enough to eat, but clothes were mostly hand me downs.

Medical care was almost unknown except for extreme diseases like a ruptured appendix or fractured bones. Other than that home remedies were used for the variety of childhood diseases. Doctors were too expensive and medical insurance or plans hardly existed. I lost some classmates to polio. There was no vaccine then. The ones who survived were often left crippled.

Yet, most of the families seemed to be happy. So I think having a lot of kids is probably more spousal abuse than child abuse.

[patrice]

34. I was raised in a family of 14 children.

One set of parents, moderate income.

It wasn't perfect, but it was far from abuse, and it was even better in many ways than what a lot of people have.

[moc]

36. I am one of seven; raised in 4br/2ba house; 2 parents, moderate

income.

It wasn't child abuse in the 70s, why on earth would it be now? Children will be psychologically traumatized without their own bedroom and private bath?

Puh-leeze.

:eyes:

[union_maid]

38. Child abuse, no. Parent abuse, maybe.

I had two, both adults now. I don't think I could have done that six times.They tend to reproduce so the family, which all lives at this address in a two family house, feels big. It seems to me that most people who come from large families are pretty happy about it, whether or not they go on to have big ones themselves.

[catnhatnh]

43. I'm one of just 4...

My dad was one of five and mom was one of twelve....Dad lost one brother in a work fire when he was 18....that left three breeders in dad's family and eleven in mom's to make little cousins for me...to the best of my recollection they bred well and gave me somewhere over 65 first cousins....made for a HELL of a picnic...Abuse is how you treat children-not how close you have to pack'em....

[youthere]

48. I'm the youngest of 8...

we grew up with 3 bedrooms and 1 bath and a very low income. I managed to make it out okay. The only abuse I suffered was at the hands of my older siblings...of course, some of that I deserved as I was overly fond of stepping into a room where my older brothers or sisters had gathered and would start screaming at the top of my lungs. My mother would come running in and I would point at one of them and tell her they hit me. :evilgrin:

[hedgehog]

49. That's my situation

The score so far:

1 BS Mechanical Engineering/BS Chemicl Engineering, working on Master's in Mechanical Engineering

1 BS Civil Engineering/BA Anthropology, working on Master's in Water Resource Engineering

1 working on BA in History

1 working on BS in Mechanical Engineering

2 in high school getting 90s in college prep courses.

They seem to be doing OK for having grown up in "abusive" conditions.

[leesa]

52. How so? I grew up in a family of 10 kids. We all learned to help and

take care of one another. We weren't spoiled like the soccer babies of today but we did fine.

[SheilaT]

53. It's the commentary on TV

that's ignorant. Three children do not a large family make.

And while having only one child is a sensible and appropriate choice for some, the down side of having only one kid is that you think you're a perfect parent of the one kid, and simply do not understand to what extent each and every child is unique. I know, because I thought that during the four years before I had my second and last child.

I grew up the third of six, and the tightest living quarters were when we lived in a two bedroom tiny, tiny place -- probably not much more than 500 square feet -- after Mom packed up the five kids still living at home (oldest brother in the army by then) and moved us across the country to get away from an abusive alcoholic husband/father. For three months my grandmother (mom's mother) lived with us, and although it was very crowded, Nanny's presence made a huge and good difference, stabilizing us in a difficult situation. Mom was a nurse, often worked double shifts, and there were times when we didn't really quite have as much to eat as we would have liked. Clothes were second hand, but I tell you the five of us bonded very tightly, to the point where oldest brother was the odd one out for years, because he hadn't been with us during those years.

The vast majority of parents do their best, or at least try to, whether they have one child or two dozen. To me the best thing about larger families is that (as several others have already noted) there can be a closeness, a sharing, a "we're in this together" that smaller families lack. Yes, smaller families can have more resources, but just because someone has four, or six, or ten kids doesn't automatically mean child abuse.

Sheesh.

[hedgehog]

55. I can remember when the family with one child was considered odd.

Now it's the other way around. Can't we just agree that people should be free to build the families that suit them personally? Why does everything have to come in a uniform package? The adult couple, gay or straight is a family. The couple, gay or straight with one or ten children is a family. The woman with an adopted child is a family. The group of single people who live in seperate quarters but who are all there for each other is another kind of family. As long as family means home, what does it matter what the form is?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

56. Uh...no.

:wtf:

[Toucano]

58. Of course not. The question is ridiculous.

Three children is not, by any standard, a large family. The commentary was wrong.

[bumblebee1]

59. Abuse is how a child is treated within the family,

not how many children a family has. My question to the posters with sixty and over first cousins: Do you need a scorecard to keep track of everyone?

[jeffrey_X]

60. it depends..it's all relative.....there is no right or wrong answer

The numbers alone don't make it "abuse" as we know it.

I was the middle of three children and I thought I was deserted and now have issues with my childhood. It happens.

[Rowdyboy]

61. Of course not....Try 2 parents, 5 kids, 3 bedrooms, one bath...We called

it home when I was growing up.

[Withywindle]

63. Uh...no.

Definitely not, that's silly.

My theory is, families tend to even out in some way over the generations. My Mom was one of eight. Me? Only child. Is there a correlation? Mmmmmmmaybe. ;)

[mark414]

64. my dad is one of 8 and they often had an extra person or two

living with them...so it was usually 10-12 people in a 4 bedroom, one story house...

they made it through alright...

i have a friend whose dad is one of 13

[Jed Dilligan]

65. Hmong families

will stack 10-15 members in a studio apartment. And their kids go to college.

Most other cultures marvel at our need for private space--sharing is the global norm.