Family size

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Levin

If a person has the opportunity, and has the choice whether to have children or not, in 99.999999999999999% of cases that person's life will be better used by rearing children than doing something else. There are very few people who will serve people better absent children. Mother Teresa? Perhaps. But it was her nunnery, and not her service, that precluded her from having children.

As Waters said, the great mass of professional humanity is fungible. A farmer, lawyer, doctor, is a farmer, lawyer, doctor. I'd make an exception for artists defined broadly, although having children arguably makes artists better by expanding the range of experience to express in their chosen art form. But a lawyer sitting at her desk wondering if she can serve humanity more by not having kids? Ridiculous. A legacy of a compassionate, honest citizens is rich indeed. And the whole premise of your argument is wrong: except for the very, very few (Mother Teresa), child-rearing and service outside the family are not mutually exclusive. There's a season for all things. But if you have to choose, don't miss the Spring.

the premise of my argument is wrong? I'm not even making an argument. As I said, I'm asking questions. If you think life is better for having children, great, but how many does one have? Is one child enough? Or must a person have as many as possible? I understand this answer might be different for different circumstances, but I imagine the criteria would be similar.

I'm asking a broader question here, which is how and why does one choose to limit family size? In both the larger social context and in the Mormon cultural context.

I'm not particulary sure why you're sniping at me here, a mere lawyer sitting at her desk. . .