Social Security is a classic Ponzi scheme. When it was first instituted the elderly and others close to retirement got back far more than they paid in. After many decades of transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations, that's no longer the case. Now virtually everyone who retires and receives Social Security is far worse off than if they'd been able to invest their money privately instead of having it taxed away. Sooner or later Social Security will either go bankrupt or have to be drastically modified to reduce/delay benefits. Any rational person who can do simple arithmetic will not expect Social Security to be there (at least in anything resembling its current form) for his or her retirement 20 or 30 years from now. So don't try to rationalize large families who get taxpayer-financed benefits by pretending that they'll pay it back via Social Security.
I do count myself in the Julian Simon economic camp that believes more human beings are a net benefit for a free-market society, in that they grow the entire economic pie. More hands and brains and technological progress historically do not use up natural resources, they generate more useable resources. Contrary to Malthus, overpopulation is not an inevitable long-range problem. Indeed, the more advanced the society, the more that population tends to stabilize or even decline due to individual choices (i.e., more parents find it advantageous to concentrate their personal time and resources on just a few childeren).
That's why I say I have no problem with people who choose large families. It's not my personal preference, but this is supposed to be a free society. There are advantages and disadvantages to large families, and the overall impact of a somewhat higher population growth rate is more likely to be beneficial rather than harmful.
So have a large family because you enjoy a large family or because you believe that's an important value and if you can afford a large family. Just don't have your large family at my expense, or make me subsidize your preference. If I save money by having fewer kids, that's my money, not yours to take (via government taxation) so you can afford to have more kids. As long as we respect each others' rights and free choices, we can all get along.
Please illustrate.
I see welfare families getting taxpayer funded benefits.
I see large Christian families getting not a dime.
Furthermore, I see large Christian homeschooling families paying school taxes but using no public school resources.
As far as I'm concerned, I see large Christian families being good for the economy, and not being a drag on the tax base.
Can someone illustrate this "don't expect the government to raise 'em" mentality among the subgroup of large families we are discussing here, i.e., families that are open to life and more children because of moral/religious convictions (not because each new kid means more for some welfare queen's SSI check.)?
If not, quit bringing up the whole issue of government funding of these particular large families.
There is No such thing as overpopulation. There is only poverty.
The concept of poverty versus overpopulation needs close scrutiny. Poverty can be defined as too many people for the resources available in a geographic region. When we see humans living in poverty, we feel a certain solidarity with them. Our consciences tell us of our duty to help them out of their misery with food, shelter, infrastructure, and the means to develop their economy. [remember the beatitudes, and Christ's criteria for the last judgement, i.e., when did we see you hungry and feed you, see you naked and cloth you]
Remember that verbal engineering always precedes social engineering. By calling poverty by a new name, "overpopulation," we remove the burden for their suffering from our conscience. No longer do we feel the need to feed them. We now can say, "It's your fault. If you'd just stop making babies, you wouldn't be living in poverty. Your suffering is your own creation." So instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. Instead of the blessing infrastructure would bring, we send the curse of infertility.