I remember reading an interview – or maybe it was her book? – with Tina Fey where she talked about the trend among rich white families in New York. She noted, ever the social anthropologist, that the trend among rich couples was to go for more kids. Whereas most affluent couples in decades past would just aim for two kids, Tina said that most of her daughter’s schoolmates had three or even four siblings. Like, “more than three kids” is the new status symbol for the affluent – you’re telling people that you can afford to have all of those children in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
Alec Baldwin seems to have taken this to heart. Alec and Hilaria Baldwin split their time between Long Island and Manhattan. They got married in 2012, and Hilaria gave birth to their FOURTH child in May. Yes, Hilaria gave birth to four children between 2013 to 2018. It’s crazy. What’s even crazier is that she wants a fifth.
Alec and Hilaria Baldwin‘s family could be getting larger. Hilaria — who just welcomed the couple’s fourth child, Romeo, in May — said during her Instagram story Q&A that she’s not opposed to having a fifth child.
“I think about it a lot,” the 34-year-old shared. “When I’ll have a day that’s really really hard with the kids, I’m like, ‘No more kids!’ and then I’ll have a day where they’re like really cute like this, and I’m like, ‘I could have another one.’”
“We’ll see,” she added. The couple duo also shares three other children — daughter Carmen and sons Rafael and Leonardo. The “30 Rock” alum, 60, is also dad to 23-year-old model Ireland Baldwin with ex-wife Kim Basinger. Alec and Hilaria tied the knot in 2012.
I’ve always disliked the “baby-hoarder” moniker given to some women. Sometimes it’s justified, like when you’re talking about a Duggar. But mostly, I think people should make their own choices about how many kids they want and how many they can afford. I’m very “live and let live” about it all. But… even then, I really hope Hilaria doesn’t get pregnant again. I think she’s a straight-up baby-hoarder. I think Alec and Hilaria have a huge team of nannies, cooks, maids and helpers and Hilaria mostly just sits around and thinks about getting pregnant again. I judge them both. Alec is too old to keep doing this too – the man is 60 years old! He doesn’t need a FIFTH BABY.
Photos courtesy of WENN, cover courtesy of HOLA.
The more babies the longer the hold on Baldwin and his money are.
My thoughts exactly.
He is 60. Let’s hope he will still be alive when the youngest finishes highschool…
So much for a woman’s reproductive freedom. Cue the judgy, nasty comments.
Right? What year is it?
she has the freedom to reproduce as often and frequent as she likes. I have the freedom to think it’s kind of insane to have that many kids that quickly. 🤷
So now the only acceptable choice is no/one or two kids? Sheesh….it’s called “Right to CHOOSE” for a reason, ladies.
I don’t know, or they could really just want a big family? I worked with a girl from a very wealthy family, and she had six siblings. They weren’t one of those religious families either-her parents could afford it and just loved the idea of a huge family and giving their children lots of siblings. I guess if that’s what you want, sure.
I have three and always thought that if money were no object I would have had more. Not like… 12… but maybe 5?
Right? They seem happy. They can provide for them. I say, give’r.
It’s their business how large their family will be.
But why would they not adopt?
Don’t we have enough problems with overpopulation and climate change, crippling poverty and on and on?
They already had several pregnancies with healthy biological children and if they have the means for more children to raise???
What Lisbon said.
But also, it’s not just about the money. How much time can you give to each kid INDIVIDUALLY if you have 5,6,7 of them? Sometimes your child will be going through something and need your undivided attention. How can you possibly give it to them when you have 4 or 5 others to take care of? What about space and quiet?
edit: Funnily, just 2 comments down @Minx mentions the same thing, having grown up in a big family.
The overpopulation argument is erroneous. The world is not overpopulated. Certain areas are, namely large cities in newly emerging economies (like Lagos or Jakarta- I doubt these kids are raised in a road-side shanty in Jakarta, you know?). Definitely each person adds carbon and depletes resources, but that can also be mitigated with responsible spending, living, moving, consuming, etc. Overpopulation isn’t a thing and most demographers agree it won’t even be a thing- by 2100, we’ll cap at 10-12 billion, and the planet is robust enough to accommodate that number.
@BabyJane, that’s not exactly true. Yes, the planet would easily sustain 10-12 billion humans if everyone was living like middle-class people from the 60s. A Baldwin lifestyle is not a sustainable one no matter how many electric cars they have or if they compost: each kid consumes much more energy and ressources (many of which are from foreign countries and will thus be unavailable to the local populations) than some villages in Nigeria. And that’s where the problem is: the ecological footprint of a wealthy North American is much bigger than the one from an individual in a so-called developing country. Canada is actually even worst, the use of resources per capita is one of the greatest in the world even if we’re only 30 millions. So yeah, rich people having lots of kids contribute to the ecological disaster that seems more and more unavoidable
As I said, such consumption trends can be offset by responsible behaviors. Fair enough to assume the Baldwins won’t do so, but not fair to assume no one will and therefore overpopulation doom is imminent.
I agree with you. I mean … it’s not like Alec comes from a small family… As long as everyone is healthy and cared for, live and let be.
I am one of four spaced out over ten years. I had a remarkably happy childhood. To each his own indeed.
To each his or her own, it’s not my thing. I came from a family of 5 kids in 6 years and I never felt like we got individual attention from our parents. It was chaos. I have two kids of my own who are spaced out and I feel happy that they each got attention and love from us.
Agreed. I’m 4th of 5 kids. All 2 years apart. Not rich parents and both mom & dad worked full time. Oldest sister was the resentful and resented bossy babysitter. I was a latchkey kid. I feel like the oldest got attention because she was the oldest and the “1st kid experience” for my parents, 2nd got attention because he was a boy. The last 3 were all girls and we basically got no attention from our parents. They were so over it by the time I came along. Frankly, my parents should have stopped at 2 but Catholic parents don’t do that.
tai, yep, my parents were Catholic too, they should have stopped after 2 or 3.
My dad is from a family of six and he is number three. He said his parents seemed to have made more of an effort with the first two and after that they didn’t seem to care as much. Now they were from a different time where having kids meant more helpers on the farm, but we are only two and that is one of the reasons why.
My maternal grandmother was one of eight girls and she had two children. She didn’t really want the second one either. Her other sisters only had a maximum of two kids as well. A few only had one child and one had none. The large family experience was not one they enjoyed either.
I come from a 99.9% catholic country and the average is 1.2 kid per woman or something like that.
I was thinking the same thing! One of my friends has 8 (!!!) and she just loves it (and I’m exhausted just looking at her). She’s Mormon and I asked her if she still would have had so many if she was a different religion – she said she thinks she would. In fact, she’s all “Ugh, every time I see a baby, I think…maybe one more?” GIRL. FRIEND. Meanwhile…I’m a part-time stepmother of three kids 16 and up, don’t work outside the home, and I complained a lot because I had to call Comcast this afternoon. Some of us have it in us, some of us don’t 😂😂😂
I’ve heard that more kids is a status symbol for the rich as well and I’m in the south. But they can certainly afford another and she seems to be in great shape despite having 4 in 5 years. I can’t imagine doing it myself. Alec will be 80 by the time a new one would be in college so I have to say just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
From what I’ve seen, it seems to be that wealthier people tend to have less kids…maybe one or two. I see those of lower socio-economic status being the ones who have more kids…sometimes five or more. I guess it depends on where you live?
She’s thirsty and this brings her attention and possibly, down the road, a Kardashian-like empire.
She’s been pretty open about wanting a girl so their oldest has a sister (closer in age than Ireland.) I have four kids myself and I love having a bigger family. I always wanted eight-but Mr. Contrary was thinking 1-2, so we compromised.
Yep. She has always been open about wanting a big family. That was one of her choices in life.
And that, my friends, is what post-pregnancy hair looks like.
What’s wrong with her hair? Mine got so thin after both mine. Hers looks fine to me.
Eh whatever. They’re on the cover. So yeah, she wants another one. Also, some women know when they can’t have kids anymore, they’ll want another baby. So they stay preggers as long as they can, especially if they’re good at being pregnant. Another Baldwin clan is in our future, yayyyy us.
I don’t think people would honestly have children as some sort of status symbol. They’re human beings, not accessories! And I think the rich are aware of that and to say otherwise is really judgemental.
But for some context I live in the South where the majority of large families (that I’ve seen, anyway) are religious and/or, a lot of the time, poor. I think it boils down to personal preference.
Aren’t the Trumps breeding like bed bugs?
Also, we’re ALL judging people around us.
Q Bananie – I get that some people love to have a large family with many children running around, but how about having 2 biological children and after that adopt.
Wouldn’t it better for all concern, including our Earth?
I think adoption is a great idea, for the kiddos, the family and the earth. That’s more in line with my personal choice. But I’m not going to begrudge people who want large families with biological children.
You don’t know people, then. Just because they are rich doesn’t mean people are good or do things for the right reasons.
Those affluent kids are raised by nannies, become insufferable Brett Kavanope or Megyn Kelly
I mean, its much more pleasant to have a big family if you have the $$ to have a support staff. Even an involved parent of 4-5 kids needs a lot of help if they want any semblance of sanity.
I prefer the status symbol of rich people adopting more children if they want a bigger family. It shows that they not only have the money to provide for many children, but they also have enough compassion and fortitude to be socially conscious, and that they just love children. Better status symbol to be held up and modeled in our society imo.
@ Cranberry :
I don’t think I could agree with you more.
I can understand some people like to have a large family and if they can take care of several kids properly and I don’t mean financially only, please go ahead and adopt.
There are so many children that need a loving home, too many are in foster care and in orphanages around the world.
To me, 2 kids are plenty to give birth to and raise them to be kind, respectful, loving, caring and
decent people. It’s not just about money, but time to be able to raise them right and of course
I’m also very much concerned about the overpopulation of our PLANET.
To each his own, but if I wanted more children in my family I would only adopt.
Yes!!!
One of my friends come from a large family, I think they’re 8 siblings or so. His parents couldn’t have children but had the means (both were MDs) and wanted kids so they adopted, including 5 biological siblings and give them all a great life (which included trying to keep contact with the bio patents and help them). I think it’s the nicest act ever
Exactly!!! I get the desire of having a big family, but why do not just stop at 2 biological kids and start adopting the rest? Would make much more sense. I am currently pregnant with my first and feel kinda bad because I am adding another “burden” to the limited resources our world has to offer, especially how many ressources a single western person uses up. It is bad and we all should be more concious and actually the best way to reduce your ecological footprint is by having no kids.
This seems like something you’d find interesting, based solely on a single comment, but still- here you go:
http://slaveryfootprint.org/survey/#where_do_you_live
sigh…
Perhaps you didn’t mean to offend, but I have an adopted nephew and he is by no means a “status symbol”. He was adopted because he was truly, truly wanted and it was not an act of compassion or anything to do with social consciousness either. I have learned a lot from other adoptive parents I’ve met and they absolutely hate this kind of language. They adopt because they just really want a baby similar to any other parents who get pregnant and have a baby. It is not out of charity. It is actually more an act of selfishness. The adopted child is a gift like any other baby that is born, not a status symbol or some sort of sacrificial kind deed you are doing to show off to others. Also, that kind of language is incredibly damaging to use around adopted children and I ask that everyone keep that in mind. How would you feel if your parents were constantly being complimented for putting up with you and raising you like you were some charity case? One more thing to add, not everyone is suitable to be an adoptive parent. If a person knows they’re not, it’s best for the baby that they don’t adopt. You cannot force it on people. It’s ridiculous to suggest that anyone who has the means should just adopt.
@Americano I think you misunderstood the original comment.She was ENCOURAGING adoption.
@ffy I didn’t misunderstand it at all. I think you misunderstood my comment. My issue was with how people portray adoption as an act of compassion, sacrifice, or one made to be “socially conscious” and how damaging that kind language is for adoptees. I don’t encourage adoption for people who are not prepared for it, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
@Americano, I didn’t say “anyone who has the means should just adopt”. You did. I said people that wanted big families ‘consider’ also adopting. No one said that all people should ‘just’ adopt children. Of course not everyone is cut out for taking care of adopted children. Nor is everyone cut out to raise children of any sort.
I understand your point that people should not offhandedly adopt children as a status symbol or because they think it’s trendy. For that matter people shouldn’t be having ANY children for those reasons. The topic was people having a hoard of children as a status symbol of wealth. In those cases, who are you to say that the children adopted into an “un-prepared” wealthy family are worse off than if they were never adopted at all or worse off than siblings born into that family?
I think your notion of people having compassion and being socially conscious seems overly negative. Should people just not be encouraged to have compassion for others/children in need? Wouldn’t the world be better with more compassionate people?
Many, if not most, adopted kids will always have an extra burden. I wonder how kids raised in orphanages would feel about your “charity case” comment. Perhaps they would rather learn to overcome that stigma and be apart of a family -status symbol or not.
@Cranberry Didn’t you say you say you prefer the “status symbol of rich people adopting more children if they want a bigger family”? I took that to mean you’re suggesting the Baldwin’s should adopt. Am I wrong? Obviously, they do not want to since they continue having biological children. I never said they were unfit or unprepared to adopt. It would be great if they were open to it but looks like they’re not. What I do know is that if the parents are not 100 % sure about adoption, it’s bad for the baby being adopted. It’s unfair for that baby. Your hypothetical situations are very odd to me because when did I oppose a wealthy family or any family for that matter adopting? I’m saying people who are not open to adoption should not be forced into it. Don’t tell me you think they should.
You still don’t seem to get the point that it’s the language you used that’s the problem. You and many of the commenters talk about adoptees like they are charity cases and the socially conscious option. That they’re the moral path after having a couple biological children or some self-sacrificing, redeeming act. These are people we’re talking about, not choosing to recycle or something. I’ll just chalk it up to you not being able to put a personal face to it like me and leave it at that.
Let me just add this since you did. If you ever adopt, try telling your kid you adopted him/her out of compassion and social consciousness. See how well that goes over for you.
Americano
Thank you so much for saying this! As a person who is adopted, it’s so disheartening to hear people say others of a certain means should just adopt to be kind, socially conscious, or as a symbol of their wealth. My parents put a lot of effort and tears and grief into adopting me. They certainly didn’t do it on some grand quest to do “kind acts,” like the commenter above mentioned! It’s like telling adoptees, “Well, you weren’t totally wanted but I’ve got this money and a checklist of good deeds that go with it to fulfill.”
@Americano, I never said people wanting big families should be “forced” to adopt”. That’s ridiculous. I said I “prefer the symbol” of rich people adopting, as opposed to having more children as a status symbol. To be clear, No one should have children as status symbols at all.
I’m speaking of the notion of symbolic idealism. Not saying people have to conform to an ideal. I’m suggesting the upholding and recognition of adopted families as symbols of familial happiness. Sorry if I didn’t emphasize that people should want to love a child they adopt. I tried implying that in my initial comment:
“they also have enough compassion and fortitude to be socially conscious, **and that they just love children**”
Upholding compassion and social consciousness does not admonish people making sound and heartful decisions. If people aren’t open to adoption there’s no shame in that, and no one should feel obligated to adopt children. That being said, people that have large biological families out of a sense of eco-social status don’t consciously think that to their selves. It’s an unconscious impression.
I understand people thinking to adopt should be knowledgeable and “prepared”. I’m not negating that. I do disagree with the negative emphasis you put on “language”. I’m sorry if you think it’s hurtful, but if people can’t respectfully and objectively talk about an issue openly in public spheres then I think it creates a greater problem of unawareness and lack of openness and honesty.
If I were her age and had her money I absolutely would have more. I have 2 and had miscarriages in bt my first and second and more miscarriages after my second. I’m about to turn 42 and my husband is 11 years older so…we are done. I’m tired. But if I had help and he was on board I would definitely have another! She’s young she can do it. I don’t begrudge her that.
I will say she’s gonna be in for a surprise when she finally stops having babies. Bc it seems like her parenting style is very much parent while pregnant. As they get older it changes and she may be staving that off but it will come.
The kids are fortunate. And beautiful. And she’s blessed. Sigh. I really wish I could have more. Good for her.
Why not adoption?
We are done.
But I think adoption is wonderful. If my husband were on board I certainly would. But as I said he’s done.
Not everyone has the disposition or desire to adopt. I don’t. Maybe that makes me a terrible person, but at least I am aware that I would not be a good adoptive parent rather than doing so in order to signal my “good personess”.
Please stop these comments. Please stay out of other women’s uteruses and family planning choices. Adoption requires a lot of money, time, heartbreak, background checks, supervision from adoption agencies/social workers. Adoption is a wonderful thing, but let’s stop acting like it’s for everyone. I’m adopted and so grateful to my parents for the life I have, but knowing what they went through, I am not certain I could do it.
She’s only 34? Unless he takes precautions, she will have more.. even with live in help, how much time are you spending with each kid when they are so close in age?
Um, maybe he’s open to having more too?
That’s great, if they want to have more children, even 20, but please, please adopt.
She already had the ” pregnancy ” experience why not adopt an unfortunate child into their loving family and in the process not add to the overpopulation of our planet.
I personally don’t understand why some people have more than two kids, considering all of the issued facing our world, like climate change and over population.
Having large family with many children is great, but do they all have to be biological?
Bailie
Honestly, I can’t believe your audacity. It is not for you to decide some set limit on biological children. If someone wants to adopt and is qualified, I am so happy for them. But that isn’t your or anyone else’s decision. Adoption is hard work, and some people who want large families simply are not cut out for it.
So we’re suggesting she baby-trapping him now? With absolutely nothing to go on? Unless her being a woman is enough for you, in which case you might wanna work on your beliefs about half the world’s population.
Sorry, but what are you talking about, what baby trapping?
I’ve never said that about anybody.
Please kindly read my comment again, paying more attention this time.
Bailie, ffy was responding to the OP, not you.
I am not sure you are actively doing it for the status symbol alone, but large families do project either wealth or poverty. For better, or worse, those are the two sectors of the population having large families. On personal anecdotes alone, the only people I personally know that have more than two children are those that can afford to have a stay-at-home parent.
My husband and I stopped at 2 kids because we both thought that 2 was the most we could comfortably afford as well as give them a better upbringing than we both had. Money was definitely a huge factor in how big our family is.
I absolutely cannot stand this woman, and I’m not even sure why, she’s not much different than other attention seeking celebrity wives but she just irks the shit out of me. I looked at her Instagram page awhile back and it was mostly her in skimpy lingerie and heels doing pelvic thrusting and calling it motivational workouts for moms and women. It’s just laughable and pathetic.
she is so desperate for attention. i guess it’s especially off putting to me because you would assume she’d be busy with her 4 children and husband so it’s extra pathetic she even has time to think about, record and actual post photos of herself in lingerie pelvic thrusting online. Some people completely abuse social media. I believe most elementary schools teach children how to be responsible digital citizens, she should probably take a course herself -i’m sure they are offered at her eldest daughters school. LOL
She bugs me too. She married a celebrity and thinks she should be famous too, that’s the impression I get. I actually wonder if part of having so many kids is getting the attention? Whatever the case, I’m sure they have tons of help and she’s not cooking and cleaning and changing every diaper.
I was going to say the same thing…I believe the pregnancies are an attenion supply for her. She is clearly has narcissistic tendencies.
Lordt, Alec’s genes must be strong–four kids and not a single one got her brown eyes? Huh!
I think she’s a baby hoarder. If she has a fifth, that’ll be a sixth child for Alec.
“…the couple duo…” wtf? Page Six needs an editor.
Lol! That bugged me too!
To each their own and people should have the right to choose how many kids they’ll have… BUT! Overpopulation is a thing, consumming waaaayyy more than you need is a thing, global warming is a thing, a new study that came out this week noted that we’ve had underestimated how warmer the oceans were getting by 60%! So I have some issues when rich, affluent people have lots of kids that will consume more than some countries. It’s utterly selfish and dangerous.
I’d rather they use that money to help provide birth control to those who are forced to have big families because no other option is available. And give them food and fund the kids’ education
I so agree with you.
I think if people want to keep popping out kids they better be doing their damn best to make sure these kids live in a better world than the one we have now. If you aren’t contributing to trying to make this world a safer and healthier place to live, please stop having kids ! Please think about their future !
In this age of global warming?? 5 freaking kids, are you serious? I have one baby and I feel guilty even thinking about having a second so he won’t have to mine water alone in our Mad Max future.
So much this! I am in the same boat, having my first and will stop for ecological reasons. If I should have the desire to have more I will look into adoption.
Couldn’t agree more.
100% agree !
I mean, they can afford it at least…but man that has to be taking a major toll on her body.
How about people look beyond themselves and what they want (or can afford) and think about what the Earth can sustain? Rich or poor, people having a bunch of children is not sustainable.
Too bad everyone isn’t as intelligent as you are. Many people are just popping out kids and expecting the kids to just “deal” with whatever the f*ck this world looks like in 20 years (which probably won’t be good).
So irresponsible in this overpopulated world. Having more than 2 kids nowadays when you actually have a choice (which most women in most developing countries have not) is just selfish.
The world is not overpopulated.
It’s warming, but not overpopulated.
@ BabyJane, yes, the planet is warming, too much human activity.
There are many people living in terrible poverty. Some willing to risk it all, marching as we speak in the hundreds towards the US border, escaping violence, abuse, poverty for a better life, even though we have the Orange Nazi threatening them with our military. Some people are in such difficult circumstances that they are willing to risk it all. I don’t know why some people don’t adopt, if they want a large family, have the resources and the right attitude to do so.
I don’t think there is a need for 5 biological children, although it’s 100% the Baldwins choice.
The earth is absolutely overpopulated
Ang, it is not. Read any demographic report. Certain regions are overpopulated, but none of those regions are likely to be inhabited by the Baldwin clan.
Alex married a Duggar!
Is she a keep up with the Jones’s/golddigger/baby hoarder combo? There are a ton of nannies if she can do that much yoga a day.
I have two and I would really love love love more. We aren’t having any more because I had hard pregnancies/c sections, I’m old, and frankly, we can’t afford it. If I were rich, I would freeze embryos and have a surrogate. My biggest regret in life is not meeting my hubby earlier so we could have tons of kids.
I would only adopt after having two biological children. So many kids need a loving home in this world and we have a major overpopulation issue.
I don’t understand people that have more than two biological children when there are too many kids in foster care.
Why even have two then? If the number of children in foster care is so disturbing to you, start there.
@ BABYJANE, because I want to experience pregnancy and giving birth and I’m pregnant with twins which I couldn’t imagine happening, since there are no twins on either side of the family.
We’ve never used fertility treatments either.
And yes in future we would like to adopt two children.
I’m surprised that the number of children in foster care is not disturbing to you, that’s pretty sad.
Never said the number wasn’t disturbing to me. You did say it was disturbing, then arbitrarily set a 2-kid moral limitation because that’s what you ended up with. How come your desire to “experience pregnancy” is more legitimate that another woman’s to experience it many times? Seems pretty selfish and hypocritical but whateva.
@ BabyJane, you seem to have a real mean streak. Please take it down a couple of notches, this is a gossip site, not a courtroom. People are certainly entitled to their opinion, but that doesn’t mean that they are entitled to be mean. Please kindly have some respect for others that you may or may not agree with. Most comments here seem to indicate that many are concerned for our planet and vulnerable children that are without caring families. So there is no need for you to be so up in arms and angry!
WTF is mean about asking why, if the preponderance of children in foster care is such an issue, the OP didn’t START there as opposed to bio-kids? WTF is mean about recognizing that her “2-kid” rule is arbitrary and based solely on her conditions? I wasn’t angry but now I’m a little annoyed that you don’t know what mean means. She said she “doesn’t understand” people who have more than 2 bio-kids, but what she meant was she doesn’t agree with it. Tough. Her philosophy is bogus when she can’t even justify it.
Goodness, BabyJane, you have no idea what she meant.
This is the internet, you don’t know her and she doesn’t know you.
You have no clue, if her 2 kid rule is arbitrary based on her condition or not.
Such manufactured outrage over some stranger’s comment on the internet, you just proved my point about your mean streak and anger.
Getting so upset over a stranger’s comment on a gossip site and I see it’s not the first one either.
Please, so silly.
Lol. She said above she is pregnant with twins which she didn’t anticipate, and 2 bio kids are fine. I can make the leap in reasoning. But you’re right. I’m not a soothsayer. However, if “foster kids” is someone’s rebuttal when another woman chooses to have as many bio kids as she likes, then I would expect “foster kids” to be that dissenter’s first source of children for his or her own family. None of this is angry or silly; she is inconsistent, arbitrarily judgy, and selfish, and those are valid observations based on her comment and what I could extrapolate from it. Okrrrrrr
Please take your meds Baby Jane!
Cool joke.
To be fair to her, from what I see on her instagram, she seems very involved with her children’s caretaking and her own career in yoga etc, I wouldn’t say she’s the type that is just “sitting around” – she seems super active and I love her chain of yoga studios in NYC!
It’s interesting reading the comments on this thread; we are all about a woman’s choice and allowing her all the options when it comes to birth control. But when the coin is flipped and she chooses to have more, we suddenly get into wanting to control her choices on birth. Bottom line: it’s a decision between she and her husband, and they can very much afford a comfortable life for their children. It’s not like they will be depending on government funding. Also, adoption is a personal choice and I’m not a fan of this rhetoric that shames women/parents for choosing the desire of biological kids over adopting. It’s all a personal choice, either way.
@ Winnie Cooper’s Mom
That’s not what I’m reading in these comments.
I think many people in today’s world are concerned with our Planet’s future and rightly so.
It’s 2018 and some are well informed about climate change, poverty, social justice, over population and so on.
The Earth doesn’t have endless resources to support whatever size population.
To each it’s own and the Baldwins will decide and have every right to do so, if they want more biological children or not.
Regardless of finances, which seems to be no issue to the Baldwins, there is a larger picture here that should be examined.
I personally would not have more than two biological children and if I desired more children, I would certainly adopt.
There are too many kids without loving families.
The Baldwins have 4 young children, so it’s not like they haven’t experienced the blessings, the ups and downs of pregnancy and raising of a young family.
I think all of us, could be a bit less selfish and consider the very real consequences of our choices, because they have impact far beyond our lives.
Nothing wrong with being a bit more thoughtful.
Her smugness annoys me. Go away.
The world is not over populated! Can people please stop saying that. Also, adoption is not easy and it’s not for everyone. It’s so judgy and condescending to suggest that anyone who wants a large family should just adopt. She’s talking about fifth baby; not baby number 15. I’m over women judging the choices of other women. She’s not doing anything illegal, awful, racist, sexist, etc – her family size is not going to take away from anybody or infringe in any one else’s rights – so what is the problem?
Also I know plenty of only children and people who have one sibling and their parents didn’t spend any time with them. The backhanded, she cannot spend time with all those kids is also unwarranted. If you feel like you would have a hard time getting quality time with a larger family, that’s great; not everyone feels that way. Different strokes for different folks.
@ patty – Yes, it is overpopulated in certain parts. Have you been to China and India?
I have.
Human Activity is causing for our Earth to overheat and we have 7 billion people already.
For some families, if they want a large family, adoption maybe a better option than having 5 biological children.
I’ve been to India as well. It is beyond over-populated. It is absolutely insane. You see women who are homeless walking around with 5 or 6 kids, and a baby straddled to her back. Why???? If you can’t even feed yourself why do you keep popping out kids who will only suffer in poverty. It makes me so mad.
@Me. Most of those women don’t continue to have children by choice: they are poor and can’t get access to birth control and/or safe abortion and so pregnancy occur because abstention has never been a great “contraceptive” (besides, it might be difficult to convince your partner to abstain). So please don’t judge them and instead try to push for the distribution of affordable contraceptives to all who wants them. Trump made funding of NGOs that provide those and family planning counseling even more difficult than under the Bush administration to please the evangelicals… It’s unacceptable and it needs to change
It’s erroneous to say the world is overpopulated as a whole because it isn’t. And it likely never will be. Yes, some places are overpopulated; but that has nothing to do with Hilaria Baldwin who lives in New York I’m he US of A wanting to have a fifth a child. There are no overpopulation problems in the US. There a handful of places that are overpopulated, usually dense urban or metropolitan areas in India or large African cities. Still doesn’t make a blanket statement that the entire world is overpopulated true.
And if you want to make the argument that people with the means and space to do so shouldn’t have large families because some places in the world happened to be overpopulated – well you might as well say no one should have kids ever because India is so crowded. It’s a nonsensical argument along of the lines of forcing kids to clean their plates because kids are starving in Africa.
I will however acknowledge that we’d be in trouble if everyone on the planet consumed and wasted as much as the average American – thankfully everyone doesn’t and most Americans have small families. But again, I would not tell my neighbor down the street that she should not have more kids because other people might be overconsuming.
@me: Actually, the birth rate in India is on the decline. The average birth rate is 2.5 children per woman, 1.7 in some parts of the country. The majority of the 1.1 billion population are increasingly aging, and the percentage of youth is much lower. So no need to get “so mad” unless you’re angry about an increasingly geriatric population somehow popping out unwanted children in poverty, in which case, go right ahead then?
Also, China has a much smaller birth rate than India thanks to a little something called the “One Child Policy.” Interesting how everyone seems to love bringing that up when they want to point out how autocratic China is as a country, but when the conversation is about children and population growth, cite China as an example of a country that’s “overcrowded.”
Anyway–if ya’ll want to rail against population growth, it’s probably going to be people like Hilaria Baldwin who contribute to that problem going forward, and not the poor brown woman from [insert third world country of your choosing] who actually has a better grasp of family planning and contraception than a great many celebrities we talk about.
Absolutely.
The world could technically easily sustain 10-12 billion human, but it cannot sustain 10 billion people living like the Baldwins: those kids will consume much more energy and ressources than what is sustainable. Lots of the products that we use are foreign-made (a lot of our food is also produced elsewhere) meaning that we’re also taking ressources out of places where they aren’t available for the locals anymore. So yes, rich people having lots of kids has an environmental impact and it would be great that people think about that before they decide to have another child. Ultimately, it’s their choice and they certainly have a right to do whatever they want, but I wish they could also try to make an effort to alleviate their increased environmental footprint, starting with helping fund family planning efforts in places where they aren’t available
I had two babies back to back and can’t even imagine having more! LOL I tell people “two is a lot!!” I stay home, do everything, give each loads on one on one time, when one is sick the other gets it….I mean everything I do with these two babies I cannot handle a few more. Personally two is a lot. Make fun of me but I feel like even one kid is a lot of work if you don’t have help with anything. To each their own.
I agree with you. One small human being requires A LOT. Two is very difficult…and three…well I don’t know how people do it. How do you even make time for yourself?
To each his own, although I can’t figure out why anybody would want to have 5 kids, regardless of the millions they may have.
Have these people not heard of climate change, not seen the news lately with one natural disaster after another?
It seems so tone deaf to me to have 5 kids.
Why, 4 kids is not enough?
Two biological children seems reasonable, but 5 doesn’t.
I wouldn’t do it, but it’s their choice.
Too many hungry, abused children without a family already in the world.
I will have one biological and will adopt 1 or 2, depending on our finances.
This reminded me, I was just reading in People magazine and it Joanna and Chip are considering a sixth child. You’ve gotta have a ton of help to manage this many kids, no doubt about that. But they are in Texas which is cheaper than NY… Hilaria most likely will, but Joanna says she’s not sure due to her age.
Hmmm. I have some thoughts about this. And they have nothing to do with money, or her wealth, or the help that she has raising and caring for her children, and every thing to do with whether or not it’s a good idea for someone (anyone) to have five children in six years?
Like, I’m sure she’s in fantastic shape (as we all know and are constantly made aware of by her Instagram). I’m sure she has the means to eat really well, to look after herself, to afford the best healthcare. But even with all of that, there’s something in me that just balks at the idea of so many children so close together. Even if you were in the prime of your life, with all the trappings that wealth could give you, it just feels like it’s not a good idea for someone to constantly put their body through pregnancy and birth, back to back, five or six times in a row. It’s a huge toll.
She’s blessed that she can and she is eager to do it, but having the ability and the desire to do something doesn’t always mean that you should. Even women who have eight, nine children space them out by at least one and a half to two years. It gives your body a chance to recover beyond just the aesthetics. But I guess when someone else is doing the bulk of the childcare for you, just having to carry and birth a baby doesn’t really sound all that bad.
You’re not wrong. Regardless of how healthy you are, how « clean » you eat and so on, childbearing is hard on your body: organs are compressed and displaced, hormone levels change, etc. That’s universal, though some will do better than others. I read this week that the most recent recommendations were to wait at least about 13 months between pregnancies as less than that is a serious health hazard for the mothers
It’s absolutely a statue symbol (for those in a certain income bracket) in Manhattan to have 3+ kids. It means you have the space for them and these same people are usually sending them to private schools $50k per child. I had a male colleague complain that his wife wants a fourth just so she can tell people they have a large apt on the UES.