I thought Dr. Newman's discussion was very interesting. I am in a no-longer-unique position as the parent of an only child for her first 14 years, and now having a blended family which added three siblings around the same age as my child. I was surprised to see that the kids who grew up together weren't willing to "share". They all fought for "their fair share" of everything from whatever was in the kitchen, to money for entertainment, school clothes - whereas, the "only child" never seems to have that desperate case of the "wants" or desire to keep score of who gets what. (They are ALL provided reasonably equal resources, btw.) The only child has honor-student status at school. volunteers in the community and has a robust social life. But, so did I - and I was an oldest child with a sister and her dad was an oldest child with a sister. The siblings came from parents who were from LARGE families (more than 5-kids each). I believe the primary lesson is that any child who has parents with the resources to provide a loving, enriching, safe up-bringing will thrive whether he/she has siblings or not. Variety is the spice of life. And diverse perspectives enrich us all. That said - I think the "perfect" family size is the one that works for the families involved.

i think the new traditional family of three including one child is fantastic. it gives a chance to heal the world and take care of other species instead of crowding them out and causing extinctions among other creatures as they cannot compete with our burgeoning over population in the world and dwindling resources. I have a beautiful 14 year old daughter and she is intelligent bright funny and very popular and what is more, totally well adjusted. We have a beautiful little dog who has recently joined the family and made us appreciate the animal world and how precious they all are and makes us less selfish by caring about other species plants etc.

I would like to add an aspect of this conversation that I find neglected: The spirituality of parenting, most interestingly to me, motherhood.

My husband and I, both Catholics, are one of those who choose to have a "large" family and I work with Catholic moms, as a spiritual director, who is seeking to understand God's call in their lives as mother and woman.

What strikes me, this whole subject of parenting, mothering, and the size of family is that it has a seemingly spiritual aspect. Perhaps form childhood experiences, or some other unanswered spiritual need, we often focus not on the spiritual dimension of children and child rearing, the spirituality of motherhood if you would, but rather the material aspect for parenting: The cost of ballet lessons, and so on.

But having children does not need to deem us to a life of unfulfilled dreams, goals and aspirations. To be good role models for our children we must show them that our God given callings are important, and that our callings can and do change over time. Our callings grow and mature, and this growth and maturity often comes with addition of children. As young adults we spoke as a child, thought as a child, reasoned as a child, when as we became parents did we put away childish things?

Instead of focusing on the material, the burdensome, the tiring routine, wouldn't it be helpful to point out how children help us become more than we think we would be?

I don't know if my experience is typical, but the economic argument here doesn't make sense because most families with one child are already in a higher socio-economic groups than families with three, four, or five children.

My daughter is the 4th generation of solo children. (only of an only) Growing up, I've spent summers with families with multiple children and the only thing I found was the limited amount of personal space. Not a bad thing, just an observation.

We are talking about "children", not 'kids', please.

With nearly seven *BILLION* human beings on this planet and the number growing at a geometric rate I think it's profoundly selfish and morally repugnant to breed without considering the larger society.

Since "replacement level" is about 2.1 children per couple, if everyone limited themselves to 2 children the world population would slowly begin to decrease, and the demands for the limited resources of our world would decrease.

I think that people who have more than two kids should be penalized with higher taxes, and socially stigmatized: They are after all placing a larger demand on local services like schools and doctors. If you *really* want more than two kids, fine, but you're gonna pay out the nose for it.

I also think that sterilization should be offered free to people who want it, and once a person (male *and* female) has produced more than two children there should be incentives to get them to prevent further proliferation.

Is having two kids *really* such a sacrifice? Do we really need to push the limits of our entire terrestrial ecosystem by blindly multiplying?

I know that some people reading this will say that my ideas remind them of the totalitarian policies of the Chinese, or even the Nazis. If you're rich you'll be able to have more kids, and if you're poor you'll loose out. Different socio-economic, religious and racial groups will be disproportionally affected. If care isn't taken in how we address this problem those issues could certainly arise, and care must be taken in their implementation, but something *must* be done to address this "elephant in the closet" of global environmental policy.

There was a brief BBC article on NPR about this yesterday, but I'm always amazed at how little the issue of world population is addressed. Battles over resources are at the heart of so many of this world's conflicts. Food, water, fuel... You get the idea.

Seriously. Think about it.

I have 7 children and one on the way. My husband is in the military, so he has more job security than some, but we love our family, and we are able to provide for our needs. We try to be wise with our expenses, and we've been blessed to always have enough food, clothing, a home, etc. That being said, when I was growing up, I was the only child of a single parent!

Being an only child is different for many I am sure but in my experience I was socialized with plenty of kids my age and developed my independence early in life. I never occupied my mothers time excessively instead I learned how to play by myself and teach myself a few things.

Growing up we had a family that we were and are still very friendly with who had 13 children. They were not poor, but they definitely struggled somewhat financially. Today each one of those children has grown up to be sharing, giving, kind people- much more so than many of my other friends and acquaintances. Living together they were all forced to get along, share and help each other out. This has helped shape them to become such giving and warm people.
Money is not everything- the the joy and love that these (grown) children have for each other and their parents is remarkable. Those parents put so much work into these children and have succeeded in sending 13 amazing human beings out in to the world. And yes, the world is a better place for their selflessness.

Many people, economics being equal, have more children because they love their husband, or they love their wife. Children are the fruit of the love between husband and wife.

The $280,000 child: Where does the number come from? Does the number include housing and other fixed costs that can go down for two or more?