Whoopi Goldberg | 09/30/2008 12:00 am

Whoopi Goldberg: Let People Have as Many Kids as They Please if They Can Afford It

In response to: When is a big family too big?

I think it’s to each their own and none of our business. If people want to have 30 kids and can afford it, it’s none of our business. Some people are very wealthy, only have one child and that’s too much for them. Some people have 18 children and they have it together. Who’s to judge?

Read more about: Children, Culture, Environment, Family, Health, Marriage, Money, Parenting, Psychology, Society, U.S., World

43 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I heard a story on NPR this morning about the unexpected impact of a Nebrasks law that was passed allowing parents to leave their children at a hospital if they could no longer care for them. The law was intended to protect infants from parents who might abuse them, but a father recently dropped off his 9 kids at a hospital saying he could no longer care for them after the death of his wife. The oldest of the 9 kids was 13. It got me thinking about one of the rarely spoken risks in having a large family: that even if things are going well with two healthy parents and enough money coming in, the loss of a parent or a job can put the kids’ welfare in jeopardy. I think we all tend to think that if life is going well, it always will, but it doesn’t always work out that way. I agree in principle that no one can judge how many kids another couple should have. But I’m also aware of the way our population growth is depleting our planet’s resources.

By Alyce Barry on 09/30/2008 12:16 am

e-mail alert

“Some people have 18 children and they have it together. Who’s to judge?” SOME, perhaps. But something tells me that MOST of the families with 18 children would likely fail the test if ever a law was instated requiring a license for procreation. But in the end, you’re right - it’s really NOT my place to judge (doesn’t mean I won’t, however).

By Kryssi K on 09/30/2008 12:38 am

e-mail alert

Whoopi, when you say “afford” what do you mean? Financially, emotionally, with the discipline necessary to keep all those knee biters in line? I’m far from the progeny police, but the product of your womb needs to behave as a productive, pleasant member of society. From a managerial standpoint alone you have to think of “span of control”. Each child deserves 100% of its parents upbringing, which is great if Mom & Dad can apply that to each child. But reality trips you up every time. For me, if you might get too tired to raise them to the benefit and pleasure of society at large, then please be too tired to create them.

By Oh! My Favorite on 09/30/2008 12:39 am

e-mail alert

1st—-you’re ignoring the 1st Imperative of ‘Life’—-reproduction—-stronger in some, than others—-2nd—-my second daughter was a Brit for years, became a top Brit-Nanny for the Windsors—-put herself through an exclusive Chiro U—-this young lady had a US 6-figure income as a Nanny—-i was curious why—-her response? ‘None of these super-rich bastards wish to be parents—-so they pay me. and i’m better—-when i do get a day-off, their children totally ignore their parents and cluster about me—-the parents only think of $$$ and power—-no thoughts of their children—-My work—-so i have my Mercedes, body-guards, and ‘My-kids’. the parents have their snobbery.’—- as for ‘creation’? boy, one tricky deal—-seems to me beyond a parent’s realm—-rather that of meta-physics—-and, as we, for years affording a full-time nanny—-you’re correct, ‘parenting’ is a ‘full-time’ job of work—-No Japanese mother must work to support her children—-they remain ‘mothers’, not a source of cheap labor—-are they going broke? nope—-Gloria S. should meet G. Gordon Liddy, far as i can tell—-when ‘worker-bee’ mothers must turn over parenting to the average American ‘child-care’ person? disaster is soon behind—-my kids have ‘nightmare’ stories—-mouths washed out w/soap, for ‘normal Cal verbal usage’—-being locked in closets—-on and on—-if women have children? that is #1—-not fueling capitalist greed—-I Rest My Case—-

By gulliver fourmyle on 10/04/2008 9:54 pm

e-mail alert

This is what I have always liked about you Whoopi—-you seem to be woman who feels —let everyone be happy! Life is too short—some things/issues are worth talking about some are BS. I think you have as many as you want and can take care of and Love in whatever situation you are in….married/single/gay….. I can tell Whoopi has had a deep experience with life /death at one point in her life, Now that I have— I see it in others.—its like this club we all belong to and shake are heads over the small stuff. I can tell you when I was laying on a hospital gurney on my 50th birthday this year—and the staff was prepping me for Cardiac ByPass Surgery—I was being given the last rites by a Priest and my 28 year old son was crying—-I knew for the first time what “Alone” really meant—-it changes you when you go thru something like this—- sometimes others do not get it when we seem to look lightly on issues that are BS and we feel so strongly about what really matters—- -HUMAN KINDNESS PEOPLE……………

By Lynn Marie on 09/30/2008 12:47 am

e-mail alert

Lynn Marie, Thank you for sharing this. I do hope your health is better. I to have had some of the same fears I had a major stroke in 2004 and was not really able to understan why people were crying. I do now.. Thank for you view.. I am behind it.. My writing is not always good as I get confussed.. HUMAN KINDESS IS NEEDED FOR SURE

By Nan S on 10/05/2008 4:58 pm

e-mail alert

Whoopi, the problem is, yes, maybe you can afford 10 kids. But do you also have 10 houses for them when they grow up? Ten jobs? I really think there’s a lot of irresponsibility in having more than 2 children per 2 adults. We need to reduce the human population of the earth by roughly 1/2 to be even partially sustainable. So this one, we disagree on.

By Mugsy Peabody on 09/30/2008 12:50 am

e-mail alert

Mugsy I am not sure if you mean that when your children grow up that “YOU” need to provide them with homes and employment. If that is what you are saying that is ludicrous. Either way 10 children can be raised responsibly enough to find their own employment and buy their own homes or be happy renting their whole lives. I feel you can be poor have ten children and still raise them to attain these goals.

By Diane cardinale on 09/30/2008 10:24 am

e-mail alert

No. The earth does not have resources to support that sort of population expansion. It simply doesn’t. The human population expansion is destroying the habitat of all other creatures on earth. The fish of the sea are disappearing so that the next two generations may have no fish supply to eat at all. The fossil fuels that we’ve based our entire way of life on will be completely gone in another generation. These aren’t alarmist statements, they’re the truth. So we can’t keep on the way we are going, thinking this stuff. Do you actually understand that a large portion of both Mexico City and Rio live in garbage heaps outside the city? Or Mambai? It’s absolutely ludicrous to think you can “raise children responsibly enough” to change their impact on global warming or world-wide water shortages. We’re heading the train into a wall, and it’s this sort of thinking that is causing it.

By Mugsy Peabody on 09/30/2008 2:07 pm

e-mail alert

Or you can try the Irish solution. Have as many kids as you like but most of them have to become priests and nuns or otherwise celibate. That way you do not have logarithmic progression with everyone reproducing and the earth crying from exhaustion.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 09/30/2008 3:26 pm

e-mail alert

oh, i really prefer Jonathan Swift’s ‘Modest Proposal’—-let the Brits eat Irish children—-problem solved—-a celibate Irishman? yeah, find one—- dylan thomas, yeats? good luck—-let the earth cry—-your job of work is leaving it behind—-or mass-extinction—-take your pick—-

By gulliver fourmyle on 10/04/2008 10:41 pm

e-mail alert

boy are you ‘off-base’—-the parent is not responsible for a child’s house, education (all mine,who cared got full scholarships—-even a Berkley Regent Scholar’)—-do you even know what such is? No. we are +/- 300 million—-vs. 6.5 billion—-China may be ‘full’, but we remain largely empty—-except for you East Coasters—-and what do you propose for China, India, Europe, South America—-‘Nuke-Em’—-too late. how to ‘whack’ half a planet’s population—-as you propose, in essence—-really, we need more children, and more mothers that are mothers, not a cheaper labor pool—-ladies, like it or not, get back to breast-feeding, mothering—-or we are truly lost, ‘done-in’ by simple greed of your ‘masters’—-

By gulliver fourmyle on 10/04/2008 10:28 pm

e-mail alert

It is this level of ignorance that has left the planet unable to survive if we continue. As anyone who hasn’t been under a rock for the past 50 years knows, the answer to the population situation is (a) zero population growth; and (b) consistent, across-the-board population reduction by choice in each demographic group. Of course ignorant people insist that their personal religion is more important than the survival of the planet, and block all attempts to educate the world’s people on the use of birth control. Other ignorant people insist on misunderstanding and misinterpreting what people say who know something about this problem. Exactly how much you know about anything is that as vitually everyone on this website knows I live in Oakland, California — obviously “east coast.”

By Mugsy Peabody on 10/04/2008 10:59 pm