Deseret News | Utah's birthrate highest in U.S.

Reader comments
Utah's birthrate highest in U.S.

181 comments | Read story

Observer | 9:29 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

I don't want to hear one word from these over producers of children about how expensive it is to raise them, feed them clothe them, educate them. And don't expect the state to help you out. You made them, you pay for them. In fact, because these people use more resources and social services, they should pay more in taxes instead of less.

Taxes | 9:33 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

More people means more people there are to pay taxes! The more people who have children out of wedlock the more taxes will have to go to them, not the other way around.

anon | 9:37 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

So many babies no wonder we went from 300 million to 305 million in a few years yikes so many diapers to change smelly!!

Comments continue below

Ed Clinch | 9:46 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Our ninety plus year old former prophet said it, " At an older age nothing will give you more pleasure than your posterity."

Jesus told us to be like Him, and for us who believe in modern revelation, and of course continued revelation since our first father Adam, rearing children is one of our most important endeavors.

We are about to have our fourth, and we can think of nothing more important, joyous, rewarding and worth it.

I am not a Utah resident but I lived their five years, my wife 2 months.

And we see a great reason for having children: to glorify God and be happy.

Anonymous | 10:06 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

i I like a lollipop once in a while but I take it out to breath.

Re: Annonymous | 10:35 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Groucho Marks got his TV show cancelled for making that remark! You should be ashamed of yourself! lol

to observer | 11:31 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

We will pay for our kids, but did you forget that our kids are going to be paying for your social security and nursing home stay??

arc | 11:50 p.m. Aug. 19, 2008

Good report Des News. CWP, former editor would be proud.
:)

David | 4:47 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008

Terrible, well educated people that consider children a gift from God are having children. Oh the horror for these children to grow up in loving families in which he/she is expected to be productive, honorable, and many other positive attributes. Oh terrible terrible terrible.

Anonymous | 7:04 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008

The older I become the more convinced I am that Utahns are the most ignorant people on the planet.

They've sold their souls to the organization.

When they've got your soul - they've got you entirely.

So, utterly sad!

Hey Anon | 8:01 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008

How do you conclude that "utahns are the most ignorant people on the planet" when having babies is wonderful for the tax base and wonderful in general. If you don't like children, don't have them and leave that up to Utahs that do. As for "souls to the organization", you might be interested to know that Utah is fast becoming less LDS.

re: 8:01 | 9:28 a.m. Aug. 20, 2008

Whether Hey Anon wants to accept this reality or not - we are already deeply into the age of overbreed.

All social and economic problems stem from way too many people and limited resources, jobs, etc.

To turn a blind eye to this reality (for bizarre religious reasons) is most certainly ignorant and causing immense problems for those who are limiting the size of their families.

Mc | 7:57 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008

Those of you against having children are such hypocrits! You enjoy all the benefits of society without realizing that someone has to do all those jobs that sustain our standard of living. Without someone bearing children and raising them in a responsible way our society will truly decline and no one will be around to take care of you in your old age. Be glad that some people are still willing to make the sacrifices necessary to raise children. The day will come when you will wish that you were one of them.

Ask Rwanda | 8:00 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008

Rwanda's high birthrate was THE leading cause of the 1994 genocide. Read a few books and studies on it and give the country a visit. It wasn't quite the Hutu-Tutsi hate war the media has simplified it to.

With only a VERY few exceptions, countries with the smallest populations are among the weathiest with the highest standard of living. A good example, Norway. Another example in Africa, Botwana has one of the lowest population densities and is one of the most stable, developed countries.

Utah's climate is very ill-suited to heavy population growth. Without massive federal welfare (i.e., dam projects) Utah couldn't have achieved it's current population size. Utah is a prime example of unsustainable welfare state.

Alex | 8:38 p.m. Aug. 20, 2008

Ask Rwanda:

"Utah is a prime example of unsustainable welfare state. "

Wrong. Utah is below the national average for welfare.

re: Mc 7:57 | 2:36 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

No, Mc.
Save your arrogant scolding.
Nobody is "against having children."
It's those who for bizarre sanctimonious reasons, (or keeping up with the Olsen's in the ward), are having them again, and again, and again and ...
This EXCESS puts a burden on everyone else in the community who limits the size of their family for the good of everyone else.

Mc | 8:45 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Sorry re: Mc 7:57
Save your arrogant scolding!
Some people ARE against having children.
You think you know why some people have large families, but you are wrong. It has nothing to do with keeping up with anyone else. That may be why some of you have large homes, ATVs, several cars, and other toys, but it's not why we had kids. The so called excess burden that we put on the community is, in reality, an investment for the future of the community. Our children are contributing members of society doing jobs that you depend on for your standard of living. To maintain social security for the future it will take the contributions of more than one wage earner for each recipient. Are you contributing enough future wage earners to do your part? Don't talk about my children being a burden to society. What about the burden you will be in the future if you don't have children to help when you are elderly?

anon | 9:52 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

So is arguing like a bunch of children a good idea. Having kids has good points and bad both for the parents and the society. I mean heck what are you going to do when you have teenagers yikes. Its all good.

Anonymous | 10:05 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Nonsense Mc.
Teachers can't even begin to do the jobs they were paid to do because of the overcrowding in our system.
Overbreeding is pure, unadulterated selfisness and you know it.

Age of overbreed | 10:11 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Less is more.
Including less children in these unsettled economic times.
I thought EVERYBODY could figure that one out by now.

Mc | 10:19 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

I don't expect or want to convince anyone to have more kids who doesn't want them. I'm fine with those who just want a small family. Their resentmant of anyone choosing to have more kids is what draws my defense of that choice. It is shortsighted to see only the drawbacks of children and ignore the benefits to our society. Unfortunately, some shortsighted people try to pass laws that make it more difficult for families in an effort to ease the burden on those without children. Those of us who realize the need for those children in the future must stand up for families now or society will be in trouble later.

Anonymous | 10:20 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

To suggest that overpopulation of the earth will create valuable new markets is the stupidest thing I've heard yet - even from Utahns.

reopen new regions | 10:22 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

WASHINGTON, DCï¿½Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced yesterday that, in order to deal with a growing population that just passed 300 million, the U.S. will reopen the immense, barren region known as South Dakota for the first time since it was shuttered in 1931. "Though no human being has stepped foot on that desolate soil for the better part of a century, we believe it is the best option for addressing the overcrowding we see in the country's habitable states," Kempthorne said. "The great, uncharted territory of South Dakota is henceforth open, with plenty of space for anyone who wants itï¿½anyone at all." According to Kempthorne, if national population continues to grow at this rate, his agency may consider lifting the federal ban on non-Mormon residents in Utah.

Anonymous | 10:26 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

In the old days the patriarchs bragged to each other how many wives they had and how many children they sired. It was a status thing.
What stupidity!

Voice of Reason | 10:33 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

And to say that the Earth is in emminent danger of "overpopulation" has got to be in the top 5 stupidest enviro-wacko opinions on the planet. The idea that we're in the midst of a Malthusian Catastrophe has been dashed to pieces by empirical observation and research.

People on earth only very rarely starve because there's "too many people" - there's virtually always another underlying cause: war, drought, or some other temporary disruption of normal food supply chains.
If population density were really the main factor driving starvation as so many enviro loons believe, then Hong Kong and Japan would be constantly in the throes of starvation, and more sparsely populated places like Rwanda, Siberia, and Libya would be paradises of plenty.

The earth doesn't have too many people; it's that the earth doesn't always do a good job of getting its plentiful food, etc. to those who need it.

World starvation is not a worldwide supply problem; it is a worldwide distribution problem.

Nature | 11:37 a.m. Aug. 21, 2008

To all the environmentalists out there you should now that nature will take it's course. You can't become "overpopulated" because nature will eliminate excess population somehow. The fact that there are more than 6 billion people on the earth and the population is still increasing means there is still enough room for them. If we become overpopulated we will know it.

progressives limit family size | 1:28 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Neocons always put off certain disagreeing facts until the last possible moment.

Overcrowded cities are one of their disagreeing facts.

Meanwhile, progressives are busy sounding the alarm amongst their own groups and limiting family size not really caring what the overbreeding neocons do or don't do.

To Nature | 1:29 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

"If we become overpopulated we will know it."

Some of us already know it, and are taking steps to make a change. Wouldn't it be better to prevent problems we can already envision than to simply allow them to overcome us because of our failure to act?

Of course the world will self-correct if necessary, but who wants to endure a World War or a widespread famine in order to "thin the herds"?

Anonymous | 1:34 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Man is the only animal that poisons its own drinking water and breeds itself out of existence.

the remedy | 1:41 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

China's second manned space capsule just returned from orbit, paving the way for a future Chinese moon mission.

This may solve China's overpopulation problem, two people and billions of dollars at a time.

a sobering thought | 1:43 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

To all those wonderful people who are joyously releasing those little souls into heaven with child after child, here's something to ponder:

There are more people on earth today than have ever died.

alicia | 1:46 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

The best counsel I ever got from my LDS bishop/obstetrician was "you owe more to the children you have, than the children you don't have." Large families are great, provided the parents don't pawn them off on the neighborhood or ward to deal with because they can't handle parenting alot of kids. Some people do an excellent job with lots of kids and frankly some stink at it. Do everyone a favor and know your limits and act accordingly.

passover | 1:52 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Did you know that the U.S. makes up only 4 percent of the world's population, yet we have one third of its automobiles and consume one-quarter of its energy supply? Keep that in mind the next time you get passed over for that big promotion at work!

Anonymous | 2:16 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

"A man's gotta know his limitations."
- Dirty Harry Callahan

putting it into perspective | 2:28 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

If we convert the total population growth of 2.5 billion for the first half of the 21st century to an annual rate of growth, we can expect 54 million additional people per year to occupy the planet. That large a number still seems pretty hard to relate to, though, so if we take it down to a per-day figureï¿½which would be 149,000 net additional people per dayï¿½it's

more understandable because we can compare it to figures we're familiar with. For instance, 149,000 is two or three football stadiums worth of people (depending on the stadium capacity). Maybe that doesn't seem like so many people at first, but remember how shocked we were when we were told about the death toll from the December 2004 Asian tsunamiï¿½several hundred thousand people died. Yet today we're adding that many new people to the planet's population every two days.

Happy Families? | 2:33 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

My six siblings and I grew up in a ï¿½strong LDS happy familyï¿½ that other families looked up to as having high morals, strong values, and well-behaved children. Behind closed doors we frequently endured physical and emotional abuse. We believed our family was unique with this quiet abuse, but have since realized more families are dysfunctional than they are healthy. Newlyweds are having babies before they understand their new marital relationship, making their children grow up along with them. Not a great example of how to get along. Lazy stay-at-home mothers make their children pick up their slack. Tired, angry fathers come home after a long days work to have to raise his kids because his wife was unwilling to. This is spelling disaster. Iï¿½m not against ï¿½multiplying and replenishing the earthï¿½. I am against having children before you are responsible and before you have prepared for this great blessing. Children come into the world innocent and wonderful; a happy, healthy marriage is an absolutely essential foundation for them. Making them suffer because you were anxious to start is heartbreaking and can inflict serious damage. Kudos to all the families who did do it right; you have my utmost respect.

Anonymous | 2:39 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

The earth is a "closed system," meaning that we have to recycle or store all of the wastes we produce, and until we establish the Mars Alfalfa and Mining Colony, we only have one planet's worth of land and water to provide resources for agriculture, energy, and other needs. How well we do at these two factorsï¿½resource use and pollution managementï¿½basically depends on two factors:

the number of people on the planet; and
the average amount of resources available (per person) and the average amount of pollution produced.
In basic terms, the average global standard of living is directly related to the resources available. The health of the planet (in terms of pollution) is related to how much stuff, on average, each person uses. The total impact we have on the planet, therefore, is roughly the total number of people times the average standard of living.

Anonymous | 2:43 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

ï¿½There have never been more people on Earth. There have never been more cows on Earth, nor pigs, nor chickens. We are using more pesticides today than at any other time in history and we are losing a greater percentage of the crops. At the same time, there has never been less clean water on Earth. There has never been less available topsoil, nor fewer fish, nor fewer mature trees. There has never been less cause for optimism for the future of the human race. Our natural resources are disappearing at an unbelievable rate, and our so-called leaders offer only cosmetic solutions. The Earthï¿½s population calls for more of everything while the Earth demands time to recover from years of abuse.ï¿½
~ Howard Lyman

Anonymous | 2:44 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Nearly all global problems are made worse by overpopulation.
We have wars fighting over scarce resources and territory.
We destroy the habitat of every other species, pushing them to extinction. In India alone the population increases by 20 million every year. These people have to live and farm somewhere. The increase wonï¿½t stop until all the wildlands are gone. Which do we really need more of on earth? humans or the other species?
Dealing with the pollution of our industries and fecal waste is compounded by overpopulation.
Plagues thrive in overcrowded conditions.
We are rapidly depleting our non-renewable energy reserves. Every person in the developed world consumes 40 times as much as in the developing world. As the huge populations of the developing world demand the fruits of development the energy and resource needs will soar.

Anonymous | 2:46 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Americans tell me that it is not their fault the world is overpopulated. The fault lies in Asia and Africa where people have large families. Yet each American consumes 11 times the resources of someone living in Asia or Africa. Americans import these resources from all over the planet. Every American kid counts as 11 kids in terms of burden on the planetary ecosystem. Not only do Americans need to reverse their population growth, they must reduce their ecological footprint. Each American woman has about 2.07 children, equivalent to a family of 23 children in terms of drain on the ecosystem.

Anonymous | 2:49 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Corporations have magnified the power of human greed to widen the wealth gap. They have encouraged conspicuous consumption. Religions are still goading their adherents to breed faster than any other sect. At the same time the power of the earth to sustain is waning through the end of oil (upon which the green revolution is based), the erosion of soil, pesticide and chemical contamination of soil and water, urban sprawl into the prime farm land, and global warming which is destabilising climate and rain.
Too many things have to go right for us to get out of this one without massive pain. It is just not going to happen. Most of the world are like pigs in a trough trampling the environment not thinking about anything other than their immediate gratification.

Anonymous | 2:53 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Two country doctors out in the hills of West Virginia were discussing the population explosion in the world.One physician says, "Why, Bubba, thiseyer crazy birth thang isa gettin' so bad that perty soon, they ain't gonna be room for ever'body! There'sa gonna be standin' room only on this here planet!"The other doctor replied, "Heck, that sure oughta slow 'em down a bit!"

Mc | 2:55 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Progressives limit family size:
Good. If all liberals limit family size or just don't have children due to alternative lifestyles, then conservatives values will be passed on to more children as conservative parents continue to have larger families.

Happy Families?:
I'm sorry your experience in a large family was not good, but I disagree that "more families are dysfunctional than they are healthy." While no family is perfect I think most are more healthy than dysfunctional. Also abuse can happen in small families just as often, if not more than large families. I do feel it is important to know your limits, emotionally, physically and financially.

just you wait ... | 3:57 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

So, when I'm an old dude, I can say, "China used to be the most populous country." Yes, India, within 50 years is expected to overtake China as the most populous country. And you think outsourcing is bad now...

Anonymous | 4:02 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Most people don't spend a lot of time worrying about population growth or biodiversity in the ecosystem. They fret over the crime level on local streets, worry about the education of their children, and guard against environmental declines in their local streams, air, and parks. National and global issues are thought of only in abstraction; it takes a local, personal impact to motivate most people to action.

Our exploding population does have a direct effect on people's daily lives, and overpopulation is a local issue, but the connection is not always obvious to people. I've seen firsthand the glazed look that crosses a face when the issue of overpopulation is raised. But start talking about the rippling effects of overpopulationï¿½sprawl, traffic congestion, loss of green space, crowded schoolsï¿½and the same faces become engaged and energized.

Re: Mc 2:55 PM | 4:03 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

No apology necessary. I learned a lot of what not to do, which may have been a hard lesson, but it was very effective.
I was not clear in my posting: I know that any size family can be happy regardless of if they are large or small. I agree with you that it is important to "know your limits, emotionally, physically, and financially". Most people havenï¿½t grasped that concept. I greatly admire the people that have and I am grateful when I can use them as personal examples and resources. It may be a pessimistic view to believe that more families are dysfunctional than healthy, but I do feel it's true. I agree that no family is perfect, but I know that so much more can be done on the part of the parents to make life better for their offspring. Dysfunction can have many different faces, some more severe than others. I am optimistic that most can improve significantly with more care, attention, and accountability for one's actions and that few people are beyond hope. LOL, on the other hand, I would be delighted to be wrong about my pessimistic view. I have been wrong before... :D

a pleasant thought | 4:07 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

If you figure in the universal principle of karma:
what goes around - comes around,
then those people who think nothing of having umpteen children are destined to return to this existence as beggers in Calcutta.

You reap what you sow.

we must think of the future | 5:39 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

We Must Preserve The Earth's Dwindling Resources For My 12 Children.

Though it seems like a far-off nightmare, this terrible vision of limited resources is all too possible. Would you want to live in a world where my 12 children had to endure such horrible deprivations? I know I wouldn't.

My children are the future. And at the end of the day, isn't it familyï¿½my familyï¿½that truly matters?

Must act now! | 5:51 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

We must take steps immediately to devise safe, alternative energy sources that my future offspring can safely consume. If we don't develop new fuels now, there will be none left for those who issue from my loins to burn and continue to burn for all time. I don't want my 625-odd great-grandchildren to have to wait 20 or 30 precious seconds for their toilets to flush. I don't want their 3,125 children to live in a hellish society where they cannot own their own snowmobiles. And I shudder to think that my 15,625 great-great-great-grandchildren may not be able to have TVs in every room that they can leave on all day and all night. Is it our right to deny my progeny of their gargantuan RVs and motorboats, as well? Of course not.

Anonymous | 6:12 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

LAGOS, NIGERIAï¿½ Emergency-management personnel are calling the population explosion that ripped through this already densely populated coastal city last week "an unparalleled natural disaster" and fear the mounting life toll will only grow as tiny bodies are discovered among the human wreckage.

"It's hard to put into words what we're seeing here," said Dr. Marceline Klurfeld, a World Health Organization pediatrician who was assisting in relief efforts but found herself "utterly helpless" to stop the senseless beginning of human life she saw unfold around her. "You can't comprehend the effect that a wave of impregnation of this magnitude can have on a country like Nigeria. The long-term consequences are yet to be seen, but I fear it won't recover from this disaster for decades, if ever."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.