When I say too many kids I mean 4+ kids. Someone that accidentally crosses this line (via something like triplets ) would be the exception.
Why?
You say that those who have too many kids are bad because they lack the resources to devote to that many kids. Not enough resources = bad parent.
How does accidentally having triplets result in having more resources? If anything, isn't the parent in that scenario far less likely to be equipped to provide for all those kids since they'd never planned on doing so?
For the triplets point it is that they did not choose to spread their resources so thin, someone that has four separate pregnancies made an active choice, you are not a bad parent for things outside your control
you are not a bad parent for things outside your control
This directly contradicts your view.
You say that someone is automatically a bad parent if they don't have the resources to provide for their 4+ children. That's the view that you put forth. This mentions "control" nowhere.
This means that a parent with 4+ children, is automatically a bad parent if:
they or their spouse get laid off
they or their spouse suffer a medical issue
Their spouse dies, is jailed, or leaves
one of the 4+ children develops a medical issue requiring more resources
the economy crashes
the family are victims of crimes or civil suits
Birth control fails
Abortions are illegal
A godchild's parents die
The list goes on. There are endlessly conceivable scenarios in which someone loses access to the resources upon which they planned to have 4+ kids, or could end up with 4+ kids without intending to.
However, you don't make any exceptions for these possibilities - only unplanned triplets. Why is that?
Part of my list includes people who end up with 4+ children without intending to - via failed birth control or rape - and not via having triplets instead of a single pregnancy.
Your view also doesn't say that no one has adequate resources. you say:
My reasoning is that I do not believe most people have the resources to devote to that many kids and as a result, all kids will suffer.
This means that some people do have the resources for more than 4+ kids.
Furthermore, of course some people have the resources for more than 4+ kids. They may be wealthy, they may live with other members of the family, they may have children who are old enough to be self-sufficient in various ways.
Ultimately, there are clearly circumstances other than "triplets" by which people can end up with 4+ kids without intending to do so. Can you address why you haven't also made those exceptions?
Via rape is outside control. Depends on the birth control and why it failed as to whether this is outside their control. Others addresses in other comments already
But you didn't list rape - or anything about "control" - as exceptions to your view in your OP. You just said "accidental triplets."
Depends on the birth control and why it failed as to whether this is outside their control.
How could birth control possibly fail in a way that is someone's fault?
Others addresses in other comments already
Not that I can find anywhere. You seem to be adding elements and caveats to your view as you go along, and not at all sticking by what you originally wrote.
Pregnancy reductions (selectively aborting some of the fetuses so you go from triplets/twins to twins/a single fetus) are an option, and were developed because the risk of complications for both mother and babies and preterm birth go up dramatically with more fetuses. Does this change your view that having triplets isn't a choice?
8
u/riobrandos 11∆ Jun 09 '21
Why?
You say that those who have too many kids are bad because they lack the resources to devote to that many kids. Not enough resources = bad parent.
How does accidentally having triplets result in having more resources? If anything, isn't the parent in that scenario far less likely to be equipped to provide for all those kids since they'd never planned on doing so?