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

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

181 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3
4

The world thanks you | 6:19 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Thanks to the efforts of so called well meaning individuals to discourage large families, they have put some parts of the world in danger now.

To maintain long-term population stability, a societyï¿½s women must bear an average of about 2.1 children per lifetime.
Europeï¿½s total fertility rate (or TFRï¿½births per woman per lifetime) is about 1.4. While the United States is 2.1

The difference between a TFR of 2.0 and one of 1.5 or 1.4, other things being equal, is the difference between virtual long-term population stability and a population that shrinks by almost a third with each passing generation.

Countries in critical population decline include Germany 1.41, Hungary 1.25, Italy and Spain 1.30, Japan 1.22, Ukraine 1.25, Poland 1,27 If something is not done soon to bring these numbers up, they will have reached a point of no return . They will be replaced by immigrating populations who have higher TFRï¿½s

Charles | 7:44 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

I've read most of these alarming posts with some amusment. Where do all of you live who say that the neighborhood takes care of the excess children of some families? In my cul-de-sac all the children are outside playing with each other all day with parents watching them closely.

Where do all of you zero population people come up with your fantasies that we are running out of "stuff"? What's your source of information?

Liberals and all of their abortions will take care of the overpopulation that the US might encounter according to your theories....

There isn't one thing that one of us can do to stop the will of the Supreme Being who organized each one of us; nothing. When it's time for this world to end, it will end regardless if you drive a hybrid or a Hummer.

He who ways and thoughts are higher than our said, "the earth is full; there is enough and to spare"...

I think I'll listen to Him and not you "the sky is falling people"....

I've never seen such venom aimed at a group of people as what manifests itself on these boards each day.

Anonymous, etal, You must be miserable...

To Charles | 9:04 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Your attitude (along with millions of other Mormons and Evangelicals)who are helplessly waiting for God to step in and save or destroy the world are one of the biggest problems facing our nation. People with your attitude vote to "do nothing" when we really need to "do something." Ever hear the saying, "God helps those who help themselves?" Also how many, many, many years have people been waiting for Christ to return? Still hasn't happened, has it? What if He decides not to come?

Comments continue below

Alex | 9:10 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

Bravo, Charles.

Nils | 11:48 p.m. Aug. 21, 2008

It would be great to see this information used to solve demographic needs in the world, particularly in those countries currently experiencing demographic crises, such as Eastern Europe. With the international skills that many Mormon and Utahn young people have obtained through missionary and other experiences, perhaps some collective incentives could be arranged with needy countries for their skills and positive impact on population growth?

what we can do | 9:53 a.m. Aug. 22, 2008

We should:

continue to strive to reduce suffering by combating disease and poverty around the world;
continue to improve resource efficiency and pollution control so that standards of living can rise without negative impact; and
keep human population to numbers that are sustainable.
On the population front, that means:

making sure people around the world have access to family planning services;
empowering women in developing countries economically, socially, and legally in a manner that results in them having an equal say (with their husbands) in reproductive decisions;
modifying school curricula to include information on population levels and implications for the future;
reforming tax laws in a way that encourages couples to have no more than two children. (They would still be able to have as many kids as they want, but the tax code would no longer subsidize more than two.)
People are a good thing, but population growth without limit is not.
Come on Utahns. Start doing your part.

Possible reasons | 10:41 a.m. Aug. 22, 2008

I have 3 kids and I feel a big reason why Utah has such a high birthrate is because people aren't so caught up with their own agenda here as much i.e. going out to bars every other night and partying, women here tend to focus less on career status and more on family status, etc.
I think it's awesome.
I get a little concerned when I see two parents working jobs to support their 8 children, that's going a little out of control
There are 7 kids in my family, but my dad was a successful physician and allowed my mom to stay at home and take care of all of us, and that's the way it should be!
Kids are great! Way to go Utah!!!

human nature | 11:03 a.m. Aug. 22, 2008

You are never going to read any post from a person who is from a huge family or has a huge family of their own (or both) that suggests it's not a bad idea to limit the size of the family.

Nevertheless all it takes is 5 minutes out in traffic or seeing that huge graduating class of last year grow even larger the following year to realize we have a potential problem.

big government and big families | 12:10 p.m. Aug. 22, 2008

Limit the tax deduction to only two children.

People can STILL have a gazillion kids if they want but will no longer depend on big government giving them a handout or giveaway in the form of subsidizing them all.

STEVE-O | 5:45 p.m. Aug. 22, 2008

The earth is not going to be overpopulated. People can have kids if they wants kids. If you don't want a bunch of kids.... then don't. It's really not that difficult. Live and let live.

Alex | 11:16 p.m. Aug. 22, 2008

big government and big families:

"Limit the tax deduction to only two children."

Fair enough. The government should neither penalize nor subsidize large families. It is none of the government's business how many children I have as long as I take care of them.

I have to confess that I used to be one of those overpopulation gloom and doomers. I once fancied myself the "open-minded" type. My phony superiority flattered me into believing the myth of overpopulation. I was Eurotrash. The truth is, I was an idiot.

Let us just say that I had a change of heart. I am forever grateful to God for that change. I love my wife and children more than life, and it pains me to see others throw away and discard that which has brought me more joy than I ever knew I could have.

I used to buy the "less is more" rhetoric until I realized that if 2 children is "more" in one generation, then 1 will be "more" in the next one. Each succeeding generation you get fed a guilt trip for a size family which would have been fine in the previous one. When does it stop?

Alex | 11:53 p.m. Aug. 22, 2008

what we can do:

"modifying school curricula to include information on population levels and implications for the future; "

Enough of this modifying the curriculum to brainwash them on your philosophy. Look, our children need reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science, and critical thinking skills, not an indoctrination camp--especially on the public dollar. My children don't need this tripe. They need to learn how to learn, to learn how to think critically, how to analyze, and how to develop necessary skills. Why create a propaganda lesson that in a back-handed way tells the children they shouldn't be alive?

to Alex | 7:55 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008

Have as many offspring as you'd like.
Just don't expect your fellow taxpayers to pick up the tab for your anti-social overbreeding habits.

Less is more. It works oh, so much better that way.

I thought EVERYBODY knew that.

Paul in MD | 9:18 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008

To Observer @ 9:29 pm 8/19

Making families with more children pay more taxes creates a disincentive to having children. Many posters here have already explained how this would lead to declines in our population, reduced tax revenues, and declines in our ability to compete in the world market.

By the way, having to spend more to feed, clothe and educate my 5 kids means I already do spend more in taxes - sales and use taxes - which is only partly offset by the tax breaks I get from the IRS.

And I agree, it isn't up to anyone else to help me with those expenses. It's presumptuous and bigoted of you to assume that large families are all holding their hands out. Shame on you.

overbreeding bad | 9:43 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008

We, who purposefully limit the size of our families for the greater good have to pick up the lion's share of taxes while you brag about how many children you have and how wonderful you are for it.
Shame on you.

Paul in MD | 9:58 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008

to Progressives limit family size @ 1:28 PM 8/21

Ahh, there it is. "Neocon". The label applied to everything the LDS church espouses and its members embrace. Also used to brand anyone who claims to be following a higher calling, especially one that most liberals disagree with.

This term is typically used as a synonym for "Fascist" or "neoNazi".

"Progressive" is also ignoring a fact. Actually, it is one factor in the overcrowding of many areas. People live there because they WANT to live there. No, not all of them. But when someone grows up and leaves their home, they have the opportunity to move away from the city. Cities become overcrowded because people like "their" city, or they prefer the opportunities there to those elsewhere.

If people having large families are causing such overcrowding and stretching our resources so thin, how come obesity is at its worst in this country now???

Paul in MD | 10:09 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008

To happy families? @ 2:33 8/21

I would LOVE to see some kind of proof that the majority of large families are dysfunctional, as your post seems to state. I really have a hard time believing that. I don't doubt the number is larger than most folks let on, but the majority? Come on.

You do have my sympathies (not my pity, that would be rude) for the problems in your family. I also grew up in a large home - me, one half-sister, 3 step-siblings, and three adopted siblings. It wasn't easy, we all had to pitch in. But most of us learned self-reliance, personal responsibility, and how to get along with others.

Your message also seemed very disparaging of stay-at-home mothers. I've known several in my life, including my mother, my mother-in-law, and (after 10 years working) my wife. I don't know anyone who has ever seen them who could honestly call them lazy. Some stay-at-home mothers are as you describe, but don't paint them all with the same brush. That's not fair.

v | 10:34 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008

overpopulation with destroy our utah paradise. As far as I am concern ... it already has. Please, breeders, slow down.

Mc | 1:09 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

Those of you who call couples having children "breeders" are showing your disdain for children and families. You fail to recognize the contributions of strong families and assume that having several children means being a drain on society. You are shortsighted and offensive, thinking only of yourself, and yet not thinking about yourself enough to realize that in your old age you will depend on the social security contributions of the very children you would rather not be born. I hope your one or two children are prepared to give you all the care you will need in old age, because one report I read said that there are not enough people to work in nursing homes for all the baby-boomers approaching old age.

thank smaller families | 1:12 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

Those with ridiculously large families should be eternally grateful for those who purposefully limit the size of their familes for the greater good and are picking up the tax tab for those who breed like rabbits.
Instead of incessantly whining they should be thanking the rest for the following socialistic programs made available for their children:

Postal System
Public Schools
Police Departments
Fire Departments
Public Libraries
Military
Internal Revenue Service
Social Security
etc. etc.

And these mega-large families from Utah are usually the biggest whiners about how terrible social programs are.

less is more | 1:16 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

Control of our specieï¿½s reproductive drive is the central survival issue our species must solve if Homo sapiens is to be a successful evolutionary experiment. Solving the issue will require the cooperation of all human beings. We are not doing very well.

Alex | 1:52 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

"Have as many offspring as you'd like.
Just don't expect your fellow taxpayers to pick up the tab for your anti-social overbreeding habits. "

I never said I had many children and I never said that the taxpayer had to subsidize them any more than any other person. The fact is, I have only 2 children. However, I will not have anybody making that decision for me or anyone else. I believe that the government should neither penalize, nor subsidize. No population control in either direction is my view.

"Less is more. It works oh, so much better that way. "

By that measure, the couple that has none has the most. What reason do I have to believe that your life works so much better in the first place? What reason can you give me that would convince me that I would want to be like you?

critical density study | 2:55 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

Many people will find it difficult to compare human populations to rat populations. Many humans will suffer for that cognitive impairment. When a pair of reproductively competent rats are placed in a closed space and provided with sufficient food, they will reproduce and reproduce until the space is filled with rats. At a critical density, wars break out. Some rats, alpha males, claim territory and defend it. Others attack. Sound familiar? Only difference between rats and humans is the language-making capability of the human left brain. We humans give names to our territoriesï¿½"World Trade Center" is one.

overpopulation and war | 3:02 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

And this is just the beginning. World population stands at over 6 billion now. Projections differ on how high it will go. At one point it was projected to top out at 15 billion. Then it was reduced to 13 billion. The latest numbers I have seen are 9 billion. This will happen in the next 25 years. What happens after that? Mass die off. Itï¿½s a fact of population biology. Eventually the bacteria on the Petri dish use up all the resources and die. We live on a spherical Petri dish. Almost all the resourcesï¿½remember that "living space" is a resourceï¿½are used up. As groups led by alpha males come into unavoidable contact with each other, conflict erupts.

YOUR children cost ME more | 3:25 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

I can't believe anybody would justify having seven children, let alone try to convince anybody that it is to their advantage that you had them. If your children attended public education for 12 years in Utah, it would cost about half a million dollars for that education. I doubt that your property taxes over that time period covered that much money. That difference was made up by people like me who pay property taxes. Until recently, if they participated in school sports, that was covered by taxpayers like me. If your children decide to reproduce at the rate you did, while maintaining a middle-class American lifestyle, the price goes up exponentially. I don't care that your children are gainfully employed and pay taxes. Unless one of them develops a formula for cold fusion or a new strain of wheat that grows in salt water, I probably won't benefit from your children, and as they reproduce, they will only keep costing me more money.

Too many people cause this: | 3:33 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

First its fresh water
Then its not enough good food
Then energy
Then space
Then clean air
Then societal breakdowns
Then more crime
Then its wealth vs poverty

Want more?

less is more | 3:39 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earthï¿½s limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world population will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of todayï¿½s 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

You'll Be Glad | 6:48 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008

To all the people worried about Utah's births overpopulating the universe and costing them money...you would be REALLY glad the next time there's a conscription - those families will pay far more than their fair share for your selfish butts - but of course you won't notice then either because of that same selfishness.

On another note - the bankruptcy and welfare rolls are lower than they otherwise would be because of the Church's welfare program. There would be a lot more of both without Church assistance.

Adam | 7:36 p.m. Dec. 22, 2008

Wonderful news!! Countries like Germany, Italy, and Russia are in big population trouble right now. They aren't having enough children to 'resupply' the population. They're basically dying out and so is their economy.

Keep making babies Utah!! Don't let down lol, do it for the economy and well being of the future!

1 of 1 | 4:25 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009

If ya cant feed'em, dont breed'em!

(No need to make this more complicated than it should be)

..and lowest taxes collected | 4:52 p.m. Nov. 2, 2009

highest birth rate + lowest taxes collected = lousy education

the lowest tax collection is because families have 40 kids then deduct them all on their taxes and let others try to pay for their kids eduction. Go figure.

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3
4

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.