Utah's birthrate highest in U.S.

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

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ..and lowest taxes collected
    Nov. 2, 2009 4:52 p.m.

    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.

  • 1 of 1
    Nov. 2, 2009 4:25 p.m.

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

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

  • Adam
    Dec. 22, 2008 7:36 p.m.

    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!

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • Alex
    Aug. 23, 2008 1:52 p.m.

    "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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • Mc
    Aug. 23, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    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.

  • v
    Aug. 23, 2008 10:34 a.m.

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

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

    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.

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

    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???

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

    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
    Aug. 23, 2008 9:18 a.m.

    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.

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

    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.

  • Alex
    Aug. 22, 2008 11:53 p.m.

    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?

  • Alex
    Aug. 22, 2008 11:16 p.m.

    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?

    Aug. 22, 2008 5:45 p.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!!!

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

    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.

  • Nils
    Aug. 21, 2008 11:48 p.m.

    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?

  • Alex
    Aug. 21, 2008 9:10 p.m.

    Bravo, Charles.

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

    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?

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

    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...

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

    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 societys women must bear an average of about 2.1 children per lifetime.
    Europes total fertility rate (or TFRbirths 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 TFRs

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

    LAGOS, NIGERIA 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."

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

    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.

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

    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 familymy familythat truly matters?

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

    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.

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

    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 havent 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

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

    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 overpopulationsprawl, traffic congestion, loss of green space, crowded schoolsand the same faces become engaged and energized.

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

    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...

  • Mc
    Aug. 21, 2008 2:55 p.m.

    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.

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

    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!"

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

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

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

    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 wont 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
    Aug. 21, 2008 2:43 p.m.

    There 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 Earths population calls for more of everything while the Earth demands time to recover from years of abuse.
    ~ Howard Lyman

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

    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 factorsresource use and pollution managementbasically 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.

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

    My six siblings and I grew up in a strong LDS happy family 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. Im not against multiplying and replenishing the earth. 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.

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

    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 figurewhich would be 149,000 net additional people per dayit'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 tsunamiseveral hundred thousand people died. Yet today we're adding that many new people to the planet's population every two days.

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

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

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

    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!

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    "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"?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!

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

    WASHINGTON, DCSecretary 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 itanyone 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
    Aug. 21, 2008 10:20 a.m.

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

  • Mc
    Aug. 21, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

  • anon
    Aug. 21, 2008 9:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Mc
    Aug. 21, 2008 8:45 a.m.

    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?

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

    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.

  • Alex
    Aug. 20, 2008 8:38 p.m.

    Ask Rwanda:

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

    Wrong. Utah is below the national average for welfare.

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

    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.

  • Mc
    Aug. 20, 2008 7:57 p.m.

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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!

  • David
    Aug. 20, 2008 4:47 a.m.

    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.

  • arc
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:50 p.m.

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

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

    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??

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

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

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

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

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

    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.

  • anon
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:37 p.m.

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

  • Taxes
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:33 p.m.

    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.

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

    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.

  • To what causes poverty..
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:14 p.m.

    I think what causes poverty is not being smart enough to figure out how to make enough money to live--either getting an education, having some special talent or skill, or finding someone else who is willing to support you.

  • Some Points
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:06 p.m.

    Yes there are LDS couples who get married in the temple with no intentions of having children - their choice no medical reason for them not to try. I know one such couple and their reason for not receiving these wonderful blessing in their home? Because they want to focus just on each other and their needs and wants.

    B) the reason why there are few low-income families receiving financial assistance is because if the dad is in the home the family doesn't qualify for the help. Also the state makes it very hard for single mom's to get help from them. If the mom knows who the father is she will get little to no assistance as they will go after the punitive father for child support.

    And yes the very first commandment given to Adam and Eve was "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" it is still in full effect. A

  • mother of 8
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:05 p.m.

    Fifty years ago scientists claimed the earth was heading into an ice-age now its global warming all caused by humans. We've been hearing about over population for eons. Obviously the scientists are not in control but a much higer power is.....more people more inovation,invention and happiness. many today think their problems come from what others do they are into the blame game. Do you think that because other people have several children it is inhibiting you in some way? Grow up and take responsibility and do what you are supposed to be doing and stop wining about what others are doing. Bless those in our state who know the wonders of large families....I know plenty of families of 1 or 2 children and they have just as many problems and challeges of those w/more children....THAT'S CALLED LIFE

  • Susan T.
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:04 p.m.

    I home schooled my children because of what they WERE leaning at school and it wasn't because the schools were overcrowded or not funded enough! "Heather has two mommies" is not a good education! As you can guess, I don't live in Utah, but I wish I did!

  • What causes poverty?
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:48 p.m.

    Some have said that "over population" results in poverty. This is not true! Studies done in most every state have shown that the largest group of people living in poverty in America are single mothers! The FBI did a study that found that some 70% of crimes committed in America are committed by young men who have no father in their home. It would locigally follow that the solution to poverty and crime is to live the law of chasity and family values! Population clearly has nothing to do with poverty! God has already given us the cure for poverty is and always has been the law of chasity! As He has always done, He gives us the law..our agency and the consequences of disobedience! The consequences of disobedience to the law of chastity are poverty and crime!

  • Former Utah Teacher
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:45 p.m.

    I'm all for Utah's high birthrate and large families,even though not EVERYONE in UTAH is blessed with such blessings. As a former Utah Teacher, let me help ya'll out with something:

    80-90% of Utah families HAVE NEVER been able to afford to fund THEIR OWN CHILD'S full education. EVER!! SO--think about that the next time you say that you "paid for your child". Utah mothers are great, BUT UTAH TEACHERS WHO HAVE TO DEAL WITH "STACK EM' DEEP, AND TEACH EM' CHEAP" economics, with the constant threat of public funding for private educations (ha ha--you mean a small tiny amount toward those very expensive private educations) and charter schools that are "supposedly" better-even though statistics have repetitively shown THIS IS NOT TRUE,(and don't even get me started on making up for poor home-schooling) are the ones who should be THANKED for being the SLAVES for the large families and many children in UTAH. In almost EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE NATION, teachers are neither paid nor treated as horribly for working their BUTTS off for SO MANY UNGRATEFUL PEOPLE!
    So-think about thanking your local public education teacher, who educates so many, for so little!!

  • Enough and to Spare
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:35 p.m.

    A few years ago a man named Norman Borlaug began experimenting with using fertilizers to increase food production in the face of increasing world population and what seemed certain mass starvation. His invention was to use anhydrous ammonia, a source of nitrogen plant food that is now credited with increasing world food supply sufficient to allow over 1 billion people to eat. It was called the "green revolution". The next "green revolution" is already here abeit in its infancy. It is called genetic engineering of plants! This new technology will feed billions more of our Father in Heaven's children and some believe a "gift" to His children. Those who decry not enough food and space,perhaps should consider that He who "feeds the sparrows" will not forget you or your children!

  • Re Drug Reps Dream
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:31 p.m.

    Actually 2 great papers have already explained Utah's high use of anti-depressants:

    1) Latter-day Saints don't "self-medicate" underlying mental healthcare conditions with alcohol

    2) Utah is a standard deviation ahead of the the national average in education level per household. Latter-day Saints seek out competent healthcare and are treated at a rate far ahead of the national average- a sign of education.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:05 p.m.

    In response to:

    Susan | 3:37 a.m. Aug. 19, 2008
    That is so cool! That means also that in the coming years they will always be a rich state.

    Actually Susan, increased population is a leading indicator of poverty and social declince. Utah is a desert state with the second lowest totals of average annual rainfalls, yet the state has the highest per capita use of water. In addition to poverty issues, Utahns are going to have to settle for much browner lawns, among other things.

  • Birth control is okay
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:53 p.m.

    Reading these posts from those who have umpteen children, and from those who most likely came from the same overcrowded family situation comes this thought:

    misery doesn't love company - it demands it.

  • There IS a choice...
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:44 p.m.

    Just me, but nowadays I'm so grateful for the gift of infertility that gave me one biological child and one adopted. Having children was the most expensive and most exhaustive thing I have ever done. If others were honest, I think they'd also admit that.

    Being raised LDS, I believed that having children was absolutely essential in order to be fulfilled and happy. Now being older and wiser, I realize that I could have been an absolutely AMAZING aunt. Many of my nieces and nephews could have benefited from some extra love and attention, but I was just too tired to care.

    Of course I love my two kids, and I'm happy to have them, but knowing what I know now, there are a lot of things I would have done differently. Just wish I had known that their IS A CHOICE. Not EVERYONE needs to be a parent--some of us could be just as happy being childfree.

  • Shem
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:19 p.m.

    To the person who said that it's was demeaning to state that Mexico has a high birth rate-

    Your criticism is misplaced. She wasn't saying anything demeaning about Utah women or Mexican women. It is a demographic fact that developed countries (like the US) have significantly lower birth rates than developing countries (like Mexico). She was just pointing out that Utah is an aboration from this norm.

    She is guilty of implying that the US a developed country and Mexico is a developing country. This is a fact of economics and makes no statement about the race or quality of the individuals who live there.

  • Family Values
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:52 p.m.

    If God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of us (his children) what does that tell us about what our pursuit of happiness ought to be? My greatest joy has been my children! Not my furniture, not my car, my job or my house! I feel sorry for people CHOOSE not to have children..highest form of selfishness!

  • heehee
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:34 p.m.

    The counsel from the Church was to avoid ARTIFICIAL methods of birth control right after the pill came out. There were enough hormones in those to sterilize a horse. I knew women who did use the pill and iud's and suffered permanent damage and couldn't have children afterwards. NO where have I ever heard church leaders say to have more kids than you can handle. Some families max out at 2-3 and some at 8-10. Just know your limits and don't have more than you can afford to feed, clothe, teach and SUPERVISE.

  • Rick
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:08 p.m.

    Some view children as a liability. They only measure them by the dollars they consume. For me, father of five children, all grown, I see them as a source of joy, love, inspiration, and hope. I worked harder, as most fathers do, because I wanted to feed my family. I had a purpose that kept me going through the tough times. I saw siblings help each other. As my children grew they would help their parents. Now, college educated, they are contributing back to society to help raise the next generation.

    For over forty years I've been unimpressed by the argument that there is not enough. In that time all the predictions of doom and gloom never came to pass. There really is "enough and to spare."

    I have enjoyed reading all your comments.

  • Sheesh...
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:00 p.m.

    To those so overly concerned with the environment, overpopulation, etc.. what makes you so special? If more people being here is bad, why are you still here? What makes you worth having on the planet, but the next person not?

    I can always count on comments here bringing a laugh. You haven't failed me yet.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 19, 2008 5:40 p.m.

    And the Salt Lake valley continues to get a little more crowded, and a little more crowded, and a little more ...

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 19, 2008 3:43 p.m.

    It's only my opinion, but the Plan of Salvation as taught in the LDS Church is the best "pro-life" argument I've ever heard.

  • Bill
    Aug. 19, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    Good for Utah! Too many sophisticats think that there are too many births!

    Low birthrate = the decline of society.

    The US currently leads the free world with a fertility rate of only 2.11 (thanks in large part to Mormons and Hispanic Catholics). A rate of 2.1 live births per mother is required to sustain a population. Anything less = decline. The rest of the free world is below 1.5, but many Muslim nations (NATIONS, not women) average 7 live births per mother.

    This is serious business. The trend in government worldwide is toward entitlements that require a robust working population. As birthrates fall no one will be around to work and pay taxes - governments and cultures will collapse or disappear.

    Youth are the next generation leaders. USA only has 21% of its population under 15 years of age. UK 18%, Germany 14%, Saudi Arabia 39%, Pakistan 40%, Yemen 47%.

    Worldwide demographics are on the move. Whose ideals and teachings will dominate 50 years from today?

  • paa
    Aug. 19, 2008 3:35 p.m.

    Good for you, Utah! The world needs more children with stable families who are raised to have respect and love for their fellow men, and for all of God's creations. Maybe there is some hope for the future after all.

  • hey non-lds
    Aug. 19, 2008 3:17 p.m.

    Utahns are not The Great Drain on the environment. You might want to attack the Chinese atheists or various other areas of the world as far more problematic. Based on recent numbers, Utah might actually be helping the population.

  • compromise
    Aug. 19, 2008 3:04 p.m.

    Having children is wonderful. What's wrong with having 2-3 children? If you have a strong need to have more than that, why can't you adopt them? That way it's a win-win, you get your large family, and children who would otherwise grow up in a miserable situation get a loving family. Good for society!

  • awesomeron
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:49 p.m.

    This is good that the people of Utah are so busy!!

  • Old Lady
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:34 p.m.

    Didn't marry til I was middle aged & didn't have any children. Still agree with "Whatever" and disagree with "functional vs dysfunctional" & "To Whatever. I regulary deal with mental health professionals.

  • Jared
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:26 p.m.

    "Competing siblings from overly-large families cannot possibly get these healthy needs met and problems always appear later on in life for these people."

    Actually, research shows nothing of the sort. In fact, there is evidence that children in large families are better-adjusted emotionally and have fewer behavioral problems than children from smaller families. Of course, maybe people with larger families tend to be religious and it is the religiosity that helps people do better behaviorally and emotionally. Either way, large families are good. The earth has plenty of room for all the kids people want. We just don't always have room for people to be as wasteful as they are. We should focus on managing our resources better and taking better care of the earth rather than worrying about how many children people have.

  • 7 kids here
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:07 p.m.

    I love the antidepressant argument. The reality is Utah is not the most depressed state. It is the state that most gets treatment for depression. Its the state trying to resolve life's issues with professionals. That's really not a bad thing.

    Oh and the population bomb disciples should know it is such a bogus bumper sticker argument with no real basis of fact or history to support it. Resources come from human ingenuity. Human innovation has always been our best resource. If you want more innovation, you need more humans. Most problems are the result of trying to solve other problems. Life is a fix it game, we need more fixers.

    So keep them babies coming!!!

  • to Chance
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:05 p.m.

    Sadly dysfunction is as alive and well in LDS homes as in any other. Doing genealogy opened my eyes to the ongoing generations of dysfunction on both sides of my family. Like attracts like. Sadly the history of marriage in the LDS culture engendered mistreatment of wives and children in some families. Many of these groups intermarried and the faulty traditions were passed on. There is a long trail of heartache and abuse in my family history which we are just bringing out into the light of day. It is a tough challenge for those of us today to deal with, but we are and most of us have hope it will end the secrets and lies and lead to healthier families and individuals. This is a big challenge for us to overcome.

  • En Hedu'Anna
    Aug. 19, 2008 2:02 p.m.

    To Steve -
    Who are Joseph and Jessie Evans? And when was he president of the church? Never heard of him, but I don't know everything about your church. Was someone else the prophet while he was president?

  • step outside of yourself
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    When parents can step outside of themselves and realize they cannot possibly meet the emotional, attention and financial needs of more than enough children-
    everyone will be better off.

  • overcrowding solution
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:57 p.m.

    You can already see and feel the "solution" to overcrowding in this state. It takes the form of telling everyone not on the prevailing-think bandwagon to MOVE. That will open up housing for future generations including most of Salt Lake. Then to further encourage others not of like mind to evacuate, attack them in their home and permanently damage them. This will clear out a lot of undesirables and open up more housing.

    The plan is in motion. Beware.

  • Proven fact
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:46 p.m.

    Abortion is cheaper than welfare.

  • To cautionary note:
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:41 p.m.

    Only part of what you wrote is correct; yes, we are to use good judgment and take the health of the moter into acct when planning families. But NO, not financially. We are not told to put it off until more financially secure. If people did this there would be no children, ever. There is NEVER EVER enough money in having/raising children! We are also told not to put off having children in favor of careers, education, jobs. Nothing should take precedence! These are the words of Sis Beck, RS Gen Pres, who spoke at a recent BYU-I graduation I attended. Just because it isn't spoken from the pulpits too much anymore, the Church's position has not changed. To have families is the purpose of marriage and it states clearly in the Family Proclamation the command to Adam and Eve to multipy and replenish the earth is still in force today. Children are an heritage to the Lord, and kudos to the young men and women who have children in faith and obedience. They will be blessed. People who put it off are not living up to their responsibilities and it has been made clear there will be accoutability.

  • Baby capital of the U.S.
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:26 p.m.

    "Yes, we are a peculiar people."

    - Gordon B. Hinckley, November 9, 1997

  • Non LDS
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:20 p.m.

    Another example of the short sighted Mormon culture in Utah. People living for the hereafter and having no regard for the environment nor economics of high birth rates. Arent 6 billion miracles enough. Having babies should not be an addiction.

  • father of 6
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    I find the typical responses here by the population preachers to be very arrogant, presumptive and idiotic. My wife just gave birth to our 6th child, and we aren't Mormon or Utahn and we are not on any kind of public assistance. Family and esp families with many children are the backbone of a great society. Read about what the Japanese are dealing with now that their population is aging and they have the lowest birth rate. What will become of America if our birth rates continue to drop! Children of large families learn how to share, how to care; they learn the world doesn't evolve around self. Larger families often sacrifice material possesions but abound in love and many kinds of happiness. Children are a blessing from God and it's a geat thing to know that the Lord has seen to bless me in this way. I commend the Utahns and Mormons for not yeilding to the social pressure bought on by the anti-children mentality mentality so prevalent. signed- a Catholic dad

  • Dave in Midvale
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:06 p.m.

    I've scanned most of the comments and I did notice lots of "NO DUH!" comments. But didn't notice anyone asking "HOW MUCH DID THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY PAY TO FIND THIS OUT???" Moocho money to discover the obvious.

  • Remember:
    Aug. 19, 2008 1:01 p.m.

    Condoms are cheaper than children.

  • Yale Grad
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:44 p.m.

    Everyone (other than me) who is commenting on this "story" had better get a job and a life so they can start dating, marrying, and having children and success.

    Your comments, and the fact that you make them at all, are comical.

  • Enough and to spare
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:42 p.m.

    When a person says "there are too many people on the planet", they are really saying "there are too many people OTHER THAN ME on the planet".

    For real world evidence, take a nice cross country drive to see that "there is enough and to spare" in this wonderful country. I just passed through Montana and Washington state on vacation, and can tell you that there is still lots of room out there.

    Our problem isn't the quantity of people, it's the quality.

  • Mertonian
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    Chance>The LDS do a fine job raising good families. Just remember that there are others that aren't LDS that also do a fine job.

    It's natural to raise and care for our kids. I don't need a Church to tell me how, it comes naturally....

    Most cultures and traditional institutions provide a frame work that helps parents. But the responsibility still falls on the parents.

  • From Seattle
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    It's great to hear about a group that is not so cynical about the future that they consider children a necessary inconvenience, to be bred in the lowest possible numbers. You go Utah! Light the way.

  • the more the holier?
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:29 p.m.

    Just one more reason to feel tremendous compassion for our LDS brothers and sisters.

    It sounds to me that there are those that feel the larger the family - the closer to God you are.

    A very sad scenario.

  • Mom (and loving it)
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:18 p.m.

    I'm a 30 year old mother of 5, with a 29 year old husband. I've seen a "pre-30" man be a father successfully. It can be done, with sacrifice. The rewards are great.

    As for the comments about large families hurting the environment. My husband is one of 13 kids. His family has only ever driven two cars and they have one city garbage can that is collected from there house each week. How many 2-3 children families, or no children families even, can say that? There are two doctors, one nurse, two MBAs, a registered dietician, and an attorney all contributing greatly to society. I agree that we should take care of our world, but I'm so sick and tired of people accusing large families of being a burden. It is certainly not the case from my experience.

  • Chance
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:15 p.m.

    Functional vs. dysfunctional...No offence, but your comments to not apply to the LDS crowd. Gratefully, we in the LDS church do not model our families after the American Psychiactric org. We have our own creed and it works great. 9 times out of 10, Disfunctional families are a product of disfunctional parenting. That is where the LDS excel...join up and you will help to stop the vicious cycles.

  • Michael
    Aug. 19, 2008 12:10 p.m.

    More American children means more polluters and exploiters of the earth's resources. Shame on you Utah for your contribution to overpopulation and global warming. Your should be taxed to purchase carbon offsets!

  • From Tooele to Cache Valley
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:53 a.m.

    I find it amazing that only one other person wondered when the LDS Church had a president named Joseph Evans. I don't remember reading about him in any of my church history books or hearing about him in church history classes.
    As for large families, I've never understood the mentality of people who vocally criticize people for having children - such as the person in Logan a few months ago who was kicked off public transportation busses for hasseling moms with "too many" children.
    Utah's major export is our highly educated young people - leavening the whole earth.

  • magnus
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:49 a.m.

    @ predjudicial statement

    What's demeaning about haveing a culture that encourages having children. I'm not sure what you are getting at but having lots of kids is nothing to be ashamed of.


    Easy there, you're depressing me. Truth is in the US the air is getting cleaner, there is more protected land and ocean than ever before and more being done to prevent further damage.

    I think we should be more worried about how we treat each other than how we are treating the earth, but that's just me.

    @ Ema

    You know they do that in China, and the people hate it. How about you be sensible and I'll be happy with my kids.


    I agree that we should be buying smaller and living cheaper but there is one thing that simply must be stated.....

    The leading cause of bankrupcy in this country is health care expenses, and may who go bankrupt actually have insurance. Children and the elderly are biggest users of the health care system.

    I don't think that this relationship should be ignored when talking about the high rate of bankrupcy in Utah.

  • common sense
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:42 a.m.

    It is just plain common sense to keep the size of one's family small (especially in these inflationary and unsettling times).
    Children need to have their normal attention needs met while growing up.

    Competing siblings from overly-large families cannot possibly get these healthy needs met and problems always appear later on in life for these people.

  • See the future
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:37 a.m.

    I respect the rights of others to have as many children as they want and can support. However, I wonder how soon it will be before this continued trend dramatically reduces the quality of life here. If you have ever visited Asia, with huge and growing populations packed tightly into small spaces, you see where Utah, and the USA are headed. I am not criticizing those having children. I respect their choice. The eventual results are obvious, so let's hope we're aware of the choices we are making, not only for ourselves, but for future generations.

  • Doing my part
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:31 a.m.

    I am expecting #6!

  • Sasha Pachev
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:22 a.m.

    Great news! In Russia things are desperate enough to where the government now pays families to have and raise children. Russians are beginning to understand something - when you are outnumbered you are in danger of being overpowered. We need to understand this as well.
    Having a large family is like driving an emergency vehicle at a high speed. You can get where you need to go very quickly, but only if you are being extra careful. Sloppiness results in an accident. Same with a large family. You have to be extra careful with your finances. You have to make the sacrifices to take the time to teach good values to your children. It is a lot of work but it does pay in the end.

  • Drug Reps dream
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:13 a.m.

    Maybe this explains Utah's highes per capita use of anti-depressants.

  • Larry J
    Aug. 19, 2008 11:07 a.m.

    While there may be benefits to a growing population, we should look at possible down sides as well. For example, the air quality along the Wasatch Front is getting worse. Hopefully people who encourage large families will also encourage managing resources.

  • K
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:57 a.m.

    Most hispanics are Catholic and there is a high fertility rate there.

    As for the environment I'd rather have more babies than polar bears. Be fruitfull and multiplied. Why is every other animal allowed to populate but not man in the opinion of environmentalists?

  • DR Don
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    "Utah's birthrate highest in U.S."

    And in other breaking news, the Sun is discovered to rise in the East every morning!

  • Unbelievable!
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:35 a.m.

    AND..... Utah has the overall youngest mothers in the nation!

    Talk about a baby machine, that starts them young and keeps them going well into middle age.

    AND..... Utah has the youngest grandparent population in the nation!

    Talk about starting them young and keeping them in the children game.

    Utah is the capital of children (i.e. the young mothers and grandparents) raising children..... which accounts for why Utah also logs the highest child abuse/neglect problems in the nation.

    And don't get me going on the young pre-30's Utah 'boys' attempting to be fathers...

  • Actually Clci
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:35 a.m.

    A recent study reported that Caucasians are having so few children that our numbers will soon put us in the minority. It seems we are disinterested in keeping our culture alive, well, and into the next millennium. It seems that Utah, is slightly immune to the trend towards the extinction of the Caucasians.

  • My Kids' Mom
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:17 a.m.

    Note to the experts: The reason more LDS moms stay home is the same reason that we have the kids in the first place. The theology that underlies all our beliefs and values causes us to place a high value on family and a lower value on stuff. There is no amount of stuff in this universe that would make me put my six week old baby in day care. It would have to be starvation or that. Literally.

    My children are my treasures.
    No, I'm not low-IQ and undereducated. I'm a former National Merit Scholar with a degree.

  • To Whatever
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:15 a.m.

    Why is the American Psychiatric Association a bunch of nut jobs? Just because they don't agree with your points of view? Are you a mental health professional?

  • CICi
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:11 a.m.

    Please think of the environment before palnting too many seeds.

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:09 a.m.

    This reminds me of the recent study by the Pew Trust that surveyed the characteristics of the religious groups in the US. It showed that Catholic family size was close to the national average, while Mormons had the largest families. This suggests that Catholic teaching on birth control and marriage is not followed all that well by many Catholics, and that the more flexible Mormon approach actually produces more children. Finally, it should be noted that birth rates are falling all over the world, including in many developing nations, to the point that population is already shrinking in Europe and Japan, and would be shrinking in the US but for immigration--and Mormons.

  • Robert Oh
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:03 a.m.

    Now if parents could just learn how to control them in public.

    Not everyone thinks that crying babies in theaters or tantrums in restaurants and grocery stores is adorable.

  • Predujicial statement
    Aug. 19, 2008 10:01 a.m.

    What in the world would possess an educated University employee to say this?

    "It's clear that Mormon culture is what drives it for the most part," said University of Utah research economist Pam Perlich, who adds the fertility rate in Utah is higher than even in Mexico.

    Wow, higher than EVEN in Mexico. That's a demeaning statement no matter how you look at it. On on hand it's a terrible statement about Mexico, implying that they're a third world country and prone to high birthrates (at least somehow subpar to the US) while on the other hand it's implying that Utah is behind the times and lagging behind the rest of the US. No, I'm not Mexican, but to demean an entire country is completely inexcusable, as it is to imply issues with our wonderful state.

    Shame on Ms. Perlich for suggesting such issues and shame on the Deseret News for printing it. We deserve more insight and compassion on such issues both from our educated community and from our news outlets.

  • Re: Anonymous
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    A couple people already replied but the article clearly said: "[Utah has] the lowest percentage of births to mothers who receive cash public assistance." In other words, fewer mothers have babies on welfare in Utah than in any other state.

  • Roger
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:49 a.m.

    I can't imagine a world where adults outnumber children. It would be a very dull and boring place.

  • Ema
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    I know it's not anything new to hear that there are a lot of children in Utah, but 15 babies a day at ONE hospital?! It that rates stays consistent throughout the year, that's more than 5,000 new babies just from that one hospital! Come on, people, that's insane. No wonder the Wasatch Front is filling up with homes and strip malls so quickly. I can't imagine the capacity of this valley being able to match that rate of growth for too much longer. The Earth has already been "replenished" with people; it's time to start being sensible and stop having more than two children per couple.

  • Oh Please
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    Great. I love kids. Now let's provide them a world-class education. We can do that, but it will take some sacrifice.

  • Go Utah!
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    I love big families! :)

  • less is more
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:24 a.m.

    Utah's birthrate highest in U.S.?

    How utterly tragic!

  • family is the BEST
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    More women who are married, educated, financially stable and choosing to have children are doing so in our state vs national stats! I can't imagine more positive news.

  • Karl
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:17 a.m.

    What a wonderfull lifestyle the future kids will have.
    Breathing black air.
    Rats in a cage.
    More crime.
    Less space for natinal parks, mountains, less water, more polution of that water.
    Oceans dying.
    Where are the jobs comming from? What will they pay?

    Oh yes, there is lots of open space near Elko.
    Lets hurry and kill the earth, so we can move on.
    To heck with future generations.

    Aug. 19, 2008 9:16 a.m.

    Since when did anyone by the name of Evens become President of the Church???? Get the facts right!
    TO Bankruptcies and family size: BUY SMALLER and LIVE CHEEPER!

  • Joys of Motherhood
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:07 a.m.

    I think this is an awesome statement about amazing mothers in Utah (and anywhere else for that matter). I don't know of anything else that is more rewarding, demanding, and emotionally satisfying as being a mother. I have 5 children (that I paid for and continue to pay for) and can't imagine my life any differently. I don't live in Utah, but I was young (19) when I had my first and I am happily married to all of my children's father. It takes a lot of strength and selflessness to be a mother. Anyone who says differently obviously has never been a good parent.

  • Great news
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:05 a.m.

    Commendable when these women wait until AFTER they're married to have kids. The nuclear family is alive and well in Utah.

  • Proud Utahn
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:02 a.m.

    People bash us Utahns for having children, yet look at the rest of the world. They actually pay people in other countries to have children. People can choose as to whether or not they want children and I respect that, but don't rip on people that have a lot of children. Just remember, everyone of you is alive because your parents had you:) Just a thought. I only have one child right now, and it is the hardest, yet most rewarding thing in the world.

  • To functional v dysfunctional
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:01 a.m.

    Well, that's good news for the thousands of children who need adoption. I'll go ahead and warn my parents that adopting a seventh child will make them even MORE dysfunctional than they obviously already are. :D

  • More startling news ...
    Aug. 19, 2008 9:00 a.m.

    ... Gravity still exists on Earth, perplexing scientists everywhere.

  • whatever
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:57 a.m.

    The last organization on earth I want advise from is the American Psychiatric Association. Bunch of left wing nut jobs over there. Have you done any research on that organization? Look it up before you spout off about things you no nothing about.

  • NotFromUtar
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:57 a.m.

    Go Family!!! I can already smell the Haters getting there comments ready!!!

  • Accountability
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:56 a.m.

    Families and kids are great, however, people need to realize the impact of and being willing to pay to educate all of these children.

  • Welcome....
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:55 a.m.

    to Utah. This is old news....

  • momnmb
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:46 a.m.

    Children wanted, paid for by parents, stay at home mothers... Can't think of a more perfect picture. Go Utah!

  • Lots of kids in Utah!
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:43 a.m.

    In other news- The Sky Is Blue! This just in: Water is Wet! And the shocking just breaking revolutionary newsflash: The Earth Is Round!

  • Cautionary note...
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    Yes, I remember the talks about "reaping the east wing" if you used the pill or any other form of birth control. You don't hear those talks any more, at all. Now, we are told to use good judgement, take into account your wife's health (mental and physical), financial positon, etc. This is the right advice (finally). Family size has dropped, and that is not all bad. Having kids is wonderful and to be desired. Supporting what we bring into the world is important also and I see poor choices made by many people in this area. Good jobs and good pay are scarce in Utah and I believe it is wise to "plan" your family size accordingly.

  • Wow....
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:39 a.m.

    Must be a slooooow news day. What's next? An arctic expedition to look for ice??

  • bankruptcies and family size
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:36 a.m.

    The key factor in the high bankruptcy rate may be the large family size that is typical in Utah. More children means more financial stress. This could be a cultural and not purely religious factor, since both Mormon and non-Mormon families in Utah tend to have large families- it's a family oriented state. In any case, having 50% more children per adult than the national average clearly leads to financial stress and higher bankruptcies.

  • functional v dysfunctional
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:19 a.m.

    One caregiver per child = one functional family.

    source: The American Psychiatric Association

  • Mack
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:13 a.m.

    Wonderful family news...!

  • to anonymous
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:04 a.m.

    what a mental midget. Breeding? You are a jerk! Breeding is for animals!

  • Coug in Mass
    Aug. 19, 2008 8:03 a.m.

    Utah has some of the lowest rates of welfare expenditures in the nation. Thanks for asking.

  • Anonymous
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:50 a.m.

    Yeah but what percentage of Utah babies are born on Medicaid?? Since the local culture encourages early breeding, most these young couples (LDS and Hispanic) are not established enough to truly participate in the "can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" philosphy.

  • Shocker
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:42 a.m.

    Is anyone else shocked by this? The only thing shocking about it to me is the fact that they needed to do a study to find this out.

  • To Virginia Brown
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:40 a.m.

    Social Security is a national program so unless Utah plans to secede, more kids in Utah turning into more workers in Utah is only a drop int he bucket for social security of Utahns.

  • Too many variables
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:39 a.m.

    Higher birth rates have existed in Utah for decades. One cannot leap to the assumption that the schools system will suffer based on that one fact alone. The rising rates for leaving the state for employment has an impact. The economy of the state has an impact. Our society is family-based. Values and resources reflect that.

  • Families Rock!
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:32 a.m.

    Way to go Utah! Children are the greatest!

  • Viirginia Brown
    Aug. 19, 2008 7:03 a.m.

    "Perlich adds that . . . Utah 'permanently will have more children per capita than other states.' That coupled with the aging baby boom generation entering retirement years also means that workers in the state 'will be carrying more dependents' than most states and make it a challenge to fund such things as schools."

    Of course, that ALSO means that as the parents of those children reach retirement, there WILL be workers to help fund social security, etc., which will be a problem in other areas with lower birthrates.

  • Jack B
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:48 a.m.

    Wow. What a surprise.

  • Samantha
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:34 a.m.

    Utah has always had a larger than the national average family size - so it can't be attributed to just one or two factors; like the higher Hispanic population. I recently completed a college course, Psychology 1100, and found all their "facts" interesting. If I had many children and had them young, then I had a lower IQ. As a mother of 7, and with an IQ of 126 and straight A's in all my college level courses I must be an aberration. Or could some of this negativity about mothers who have children, young and many, be wrong?

  • Steve
    Aug. 19, 2008 6:17 a.m.

    The interesting thing is that, according to the stats presented, it must absolutely be the choice/decision of most of these mothers. Stacy (photo) doesn't exactly look like she was coerced by her husband. Things are changing in the Church, however. Joseph & Jesse Evans gave a BYU devotional in the late `60s just after the pill was introduced before he was church president. He told us we "would be damned if we didn't have all the children we could". I truly cannot imagine too many talks being given on this subject today, by general authorities or in Sacrament Meetings. Only the Relief Society General Presidency has the courage to endure the harassment issued by the media and many women in the Church today. Members have largely chosen to forget that part of "building the Kingdom on earth". In those days, it was not uncommon to see many families with 8-10 children. Instead, today we see many more member families living in spacious homes, owning 3+ cars, wearing costly apparel, very much into consumption debt, having only 2-3 children. It will be "fun" to read many of the following comments. Thanks for the informative and assuring article.

  • Susan
    Aug. 19, 2008 3:37 a.m.

    That is so cool! That means also that in the coming years they will always be a rich state.