Comments about ‘Utah's birthrate highest in U.S.’

Return to article »

State's women also No. 1 in many other fertility-linked areas

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 19 2008 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

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?


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

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

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

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

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

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.


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


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

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
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

Control of our species 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.


"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

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 territories"World Trade Center" is one.

overpopulation and war

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. Its 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 resourcesremember that "living space" is a resourceare used up. As groups led by alpha males come into unavoidable contact with each other, conflict erupts.

YOUR children cost ME more

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:

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

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 earths 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 todays 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

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.


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

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

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

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments