[durasell]

Not having a dog in this fight, I tend to look at it in a very cold blooded way. Someone can have one or two kids and give them all the little perks that help to assure a prosperous life, education, travel, a relative amount of financial security...or, they can have five or six kids and live on the financial edge -- no travel, no high end education, no financial security for the kids.

And people do fall over the edge every day -- I've seen it in ghettos where decent people go on public assistance just to feed the four or five kids. And then folks get down on them for having more kids than they can afford.

[Antoninus]

or, they can have five or six kids and live on the financial edge -- no travel, no high end education, no financial security for the kids.

False dichotomy. There's another "or" you haven't considered:

Or, they can have five, six, ten, a dozen kids and live very modestly, instilling in their children from day one that they need to pull their own weight, help with things around the house, help with their younger siblings, and take care of each other in general. I would argue that such families are many times healthier and happier than your typical DINK couple or family with one or two kids. Why? Because selfishness is given no quarter in a large family.

[Antoninus]

I've seen it in ghettos where decent people go on public assistance just to feed the four or five kids.

Well, there are at least three Freepers on this thread who have 4+ kids. I can't speak for the others, but my family has never been on public assistance of any kind.