Is it Immoral to Have a Large Family in Today's Modern Society?

What are the implications for Americans stood the population continued to explode? Should people of all nations limit the size of their families to ensure future generations of a livable world?

Many would argue that the idea of limiting one's family is contrary to nature and to God's will. Perhaps the idea of a "livable world" lays too much emphasis on material rather than spiritual values. Others feel that instead of limiting our families we should put our confidence in science and in man's ingenuity to handle the problems of overpopulation as they arise. Still others are all armed that only educated and responsible people will respond to such a suggestion, thereby seriously depleting our society of what might be its most valuable members. Others suggest that the problem could be solved by preventing the birth of illegitimate rather than legitimate children. Where do you stand on the issue?

One way of recognizing a living, current issue is by the controversy it arouses. Unquestionably, the problem of large families is an issue of this kind, for any discussion of it today even though immediate and vigorous response.

Although the dictionary definition of morality is "characterized by excellent in what pertains to practice or conduct; right and proper," most Americans when they use the word do not refer to excellence in general but to reproductive behavior in particular. Obviously, family size is not a moral issue in this sense. But in looking ahead to what our world may become and to the possibilities of realizing our most cherished human values in a densely overpopulated world, it is clear that our ethic of human relations is involved.

A new kind of understanding about the future should not affect our feelings concerning the families we already have. As one father of eight children, whom I know personally, once said to me, "They are all here, and there is not one of them I would do without." When we talk about limiting our number of offspring, we tend to do so in terms of future endeavors and personal choices. Granted, there are some people who have attitudes towards large families, but many others welcomed them with open arms.

Nothing that I - or anyone - can say will have much meaning to those who are concerned only with their own private right to do exactly as they feel they should, without taking thought for their neighbors, for the rest of society and the rest of the world, or for the children of tomorrow. Then again, nobody has the right to deal with anyone's individual life choices except to acknowledge how he or she cares to live it.

Our society has a current and underlying believe that having children is the single most important thing that anyone can do. And while I am too young to know what it was like to live during the Depression or World War II, I can only imagine that they would have phrased their answers much differently than we do today. For many people in those years, it was against the will of God for them to marry and have children they could not adequately care for. Ironically, demographers of that day tended to think that in a world of plenty, people would automatically limit the size of their families so that each child could have a better share of a better life. Our experience then was an insufficient guide to what prosperity - or even the hope of prosperity - might mean to a changing world. Today we must ask, and answer, current questions in the light of our changed and still changing world.

A "livable world" is a world in which children are safe and well, loved and cared for, in which city children have space to play and all children, even in the most remote places, have access to good education, adequate nutrition, and medical care. So far, despite numerous scientific, educational, technological, and agricultural improvements, the vast majority of the population on our planet tildes not have access to these basic needs. Many families today are spending a huge amount of money on meaningless luxuries - smothering their children with toys, loading down their adolescence with close and gadgets and cars. Yet the real needs of most people for human growth and the development of a full personality have nothing to do with these objects. These objects, in turn, are often blamed for various areas of environmental and economic deterioration, therefore depleting our "livable world" of its valuable resources.

But shouldn't we tried to put our trust in science to provide food or to provide colonies in outer space for the survival of our human species? Perhaps those who pose such a question have missed the point altogether, primarily that it is the scientists themselves who have alerted us to the present crisis. Science in its application must be concerned not only with the development of new resources, such as food, but also with making a sober appraisal of what is happening and what is possible. And it is scientists, using their best knowledge, who are warning that of the dangers of a runaway population and of the importance of getting our world population into balance. It is scientists who have pointed out that in the United States alone, at our present birth rate, we may have a population of 1 billion people by the year 2050, a date that the majority of our children will live to see. Likewise, scientists also foresee the stresses which may result, even with the best use of our resources. We run no risk of running out of people for space colonization in the future. However, we do run the risk of suffocating the next three or four generations.

Some people may argue that it is contrary to nature to consider how many children we can raise in the next generation -- and the next and the next -- and still have a good life for each child. What is involved here is the question of what we mean by "nature." One view is embodied in the religious conception of natural law -- man's understanding of nature as the will of God. Those who accept this view do not argue against celibacy, or late marriage, or continued marital relations in the case of those who know they are unable to conceive or bear children. What is important, from this religious viewpoint, is a willingness on the part of those who are married to accept the children sent by God. For religious men and women who take this view of nature and who also takes seriously their responsibilities to the future of the world, measures to protect that future will take the form of fewer marriages, or late or marriages, and the regular use of birth control methods.

There is also the viewpoint that regards nature simply as the order of the universe in which we live, about which we are continually learning new things. Among those who hold this view, including those who believe it is part of a religious life to live in accordance with nature, there is a recognition that as our knowledge of nature changes and grows, so does our ability to include nature in our chosen actions. There was a time when human beings had to accept as natural the death of infants whose mothers had no milk to feed them and those who were stricken by diseases for which no remedy was known. Today our scientific knowledge -- our greater knowledge of nature -- has made it possible for babies to live on carefully devised formulas, and the scientific medicine protects their health. Yet, few argue that such advances are wrong or that they contradict the will of God.

In every form of human behavior as civilization has advanced, then means that men used to follow their understanding of the will of God have changed. At some periods of history in the past this meant a great number of celibate, some of whom devoted their lives to the protection of learning. At other periods, large families were needed. What we are now considering he is no particular need of a particular period in history when, because of the sudden increase in our ability to save innocent lives, we must include nature in our plans and actions in a new way. Living in accordance with nature is not a matter of prescription but all of this. In which men carry out what they believe to be God's will.

Others have raised the question whether it would not be the best educated and the most responsible sections of the population -- the people who are best able to bring up children -- who would be most likely to limit the size of their families. The answer to this question is not hard to find. As the case would be, it tends to be the educated and the responsible who set the trends of the day in size of family and methods used in child-rearing. Yet we need not fear a lack of educated children. If we can establish a new style of family living, which emphasizes fewer children and more time for adults to care for each child, more children in every group will be given more care and a better chance at education. We are steadily opening education to more people. If that education includes a greater emphasis on responsible and thoughtful parenthood, we will have a larger population of well-loved and well-reared children a generation from now.

Sources:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/950829-immoral-have-large-family.html
http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.187585-How-many-kids-do-you-want-and-is-it-immoral-to-have-more-than-2-kids-Bonus-what-names?page=2
http://bigthink.com/ideas/6979
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/liberals-have-higher-iqs-than.html