Number of kids -- 2 vs. 3?

[Alphawave]

I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(

On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
expenses.

Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
on bringing more of that joy to all of us?

So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
the right one?

-- Alpha
<thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[April]

(Miscarriage Ment.)



For us? This is # 2 living (or will be) but #3 overall. We waited until #1
was turning 3 to start ttc for another, enjoying our time with her as much
as we could.......we lost #2 to M/C in Nov and it took us 9 months to
conceive this one and he/she is very precious to us.....I always wanted at
very least 3 children as did Dh......however, we are playing it by ear. This
pregnancy so far (11 weeks) is proving much tougher than my first....and
being older (30) now I am finding my nerves are shot and I am just a nut
case over alot......so not enjoying it much at all........we said we'll play
it by ear and if I feel I can manage another after this, and if we can
endure ttc and the risks again we may try again once this one turns
2.5.........

--
April
Proud mom of Julianna 11/28/99
Baby Bean due 3/23/04
"Making the decision to have a child-it's momentous. It is to decide forever
to have your heart go walking around outside your body."
--Elizabeth Stone
My Site www.breastfeedingmatters.com

"Alphawave" > wrote in message
...
> I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
> done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
> misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
> swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
> other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
> poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
> experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(
>
> On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
> have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
> another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
> bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
> expenses.
>
> Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
> boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
> me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
> on bringing more of that joy to all of us?
>
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?
>
> -- Alpha
> <thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Nina]

"Alphawave" > wrote
>
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?

My 2 youngest will be 8 years apart, not exactly what I was planning, but a
divorce and a new marriage kind of got my spacing all weird. I'd always
wanted 4, I am one of 4 and my mother is one of 6. I have a boy and a girl,
and always knew I wanted my daughter to have a sister.I also want grandkids
and since my son is autistic, I figured I needed more than just the one
child for grandchild giving purposes. Though I am tired and worn out with
all 4 kids ( my husband has 3 , so this one makes 6 kids ranging from 0-20)
I still dont plan to have my tubes tied. Ya never know.
When will I know this is the right decision? Probably never. But Im cool
with that. There are no guarantees.

[jmorgan]

Alphawave wrote:

> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?
>
> -- Alpha
> <thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

We are in similar boats - I have a 3 year old and am 11 weeks pregnant with #2
- we're seriously thinking about being done after this one, but then again I
get those little twinges of 'what if' we want a third. So I've made the
decision to not make any final decisions until #2 is 1 year old....then I
think I'll have a better grasp on if we want any more kids.

2 kids seems like a better match for my personality, plus the fact that my 3
year old is extraordinarily demanding in a lot of ways ......she's 3 going on
15, we're getting a good taste of the teen years extra early. I keep telling
my husband that if we have a really mellow 2nd child there's a slim chance of
a 3rd, but if this one is anything like the 3 year old, we are DONE! For me 3
would be a big deal, like you said....and I'm not really nostalgic for the
newborn days - I almost prefer the toddler and older stages to the baby
stages, even though its a different set of challenges. So we'll
see.....sorry, not a big help in your decision, but I'll be interested to see
the responses.

cara

[Mary Gordon]

We have three. I always thought I would have two, but after the second
was born, I just had a niggling feeling we were missing someone. Not
rational - but I just didn't feel the family was complete quite yet.
Who knows the deep psychological reasons - doubtless a shrink would
have a field day, but we'd had two sons, and I dunno if I would have
felt the same if one of those two was a girl.. I don't THINK I would,
but who knows since that isn't what happened and we don't get to
replay our lives with interesting changes!

I should mention that baby #2 was the infant from hell - turns out
years later he was diagnosed with a high functioning form of autism,
which explains a LOT about the challenges he presented as a baby. If
having my hands full should have convinced me to not have another
child, he would have done it - but.....

DH took a while to think about it. I kept my mouth shut because I
didn't want him to feel cornered but clearly he wasn't 100% sure
either, since we'd agreed that he would go for the snip when we were
done. So...one fine day when #2 was a toddler, we had the talk about
another one...and , four years after #2 we had #3, and shortly
thereafter, he did get "fixed". By the way, I had #1 at 34, #2 at 37
and #3 at 41.

We have the right family for us, and we are very glad we went for #3.
It is very hard to gauge how hard parenthood will be when kids are
small, and very high maintenance. You really have to think big picture
long term. For example, when we had #3, #1 was seven years old, and
considerably more independent than a baby, toddler or preschooler, so
the work wasn't as demanding as it would be with 3 under the age of 5
for example (one of my neighbours had 3 in 4 years and I think THAT
would have killed me, but a 7 year spread was do-able)..

Now they are 12, 9 and 5 and it works beautifully, and in a lot of
ways, we've realized that once you have two, your lives are pretty
much set up around kids, and you really could add more without it
being a major big deal. I find three managable, and knowing what I
know now - if I were younger and more kids were physically possible,
it would have been no biggie to have a fourth.

Mary G.
(2 sons and a daughter)

[Ericka Kammerer]

Alphawave wrote:

> I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
> done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
> misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
> swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
> other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
> poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
> experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(
>
> On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
> have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
> another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
> bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
> expenses.
>
> Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
> boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
> me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
> on bringing more of that joy to all of us?
>
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?


I couldn't help laughing out loud at your post--that is
*SO* where we were years ago! And you know what came of that!
Come on over and check out the situation with three anytime you
like ;-) (By the way, Mom's Night Out is on for Wednesday
at 7:30 at the Old Brogue, so come on down if you like.)
I absolutely didn't feel like I could shut the door
on the possibility of a third, even right after number two
arrived. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine handling
three either. In the early going, I think DH could have
held at two easily. When Colin was around 4yo I started
thinking three was a possibility, and by around 4.5yo and
almost ready for kindergarten I really felt like three
would be doable and a good thing and DH had come around
too. Genevieve arrived just before Colin turned 6yo and
it's gone really well. I didn't mind having a newborn
and a toddler the first time around, but this time it
is so nice to have the older kids old enough to be more
independent. Plus, they'll both be in school full day
this year, which leaves plenty of time for one-on-one
baby time during the day (though I have to steal some
of that for work).
Things we considered included:

- Could I keep working with 3 (half time, mostly from
home)? And how would it affect my work situation?
- How might it affect the sibling dynamics?
- Would there be real time for the baby so he/she wouldn't
just be an extra body being dragged around from pillar
to post with the boys' schedules?
- Were we up for the third college education?
- Were we up to pushing empty nesting back six years?
- Could we offer #3 opportunities similar to those
we've been offering the boys? (Not that kids need
zillions of activities, but if #3 had a passion about
something or other, would we be able to support that?)
- Would having a third make a big difference in housing
(i.e., force us to move out of the house we'd just
bought sooner than we'd have planned)?
- Were we ready to handle babyhood and toddlerhood again,
with the diapers, increased prep time for everything,
less mobility, etc.?
- Were we willing to get a minivan, or at least something
larger than what we were currently driving?
- Was this about having a third *child* or about trying to
have a *girl*?
- How would a third affect the extended family (my parents
live practically next door and I knew I'd need some
help from them to mix baby and work) and were they up
to it? And if they weren't, were we willing to consider
other childcare alternatives?

Ultimately, we felt that we really *did* want a third and
felt we could handle the consequences, so we went for it.
I'm glad we did--she's been a delight and has fit right
into the family. It has been a challenge dealing with
a big deadline at work in September with a little baby,
but it's working out (and will seem like a piece of cake
when I get back to my regular work schedule!).

So my advice would be to leave the door open and consider
the possibility of longer spacing between #2 and #3 if
that addresses some of your concerns. As the first two
get older, the hands-on demands of parenting decrease
significantly. You get more demands in terms of their
schedule, so it means that #3's babyhood isn't that nice,
seddate, stay at home and hang out with Mommy time. There's
a lot of travelling around to school and lessons and
other activities. But if that doesn't sound like a bad
thing to you (didn't to me), then it might work well.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Sophie]

Well no one says you have to have #3 so soon. We'll have quite a gap (for
us) between #3 and #4 which this time I think will be great. I liked the
close gaps with the others, but it'll be neat to have 1 in school full time
and 2 in part time and just one baby.

Adding #3 was easy peasy. Lewis just fit into what we were already doing.

I do think we'd have to think really hard if we needed a new vehicle or a
new house if we had another child. We've often joked our friends had enough
when they had 5 considering having #6 meant they needed a 15 passenger van!

It *is* a little harder to do things with 3 kids cos I'm usually doing it on
my own. I just plan around when kids are in school or playgroups.

Of my friends who only have 2 children they've honestly told me they would
have been happy with 1 child, and only had the second so they first one was
not an only child. I have one friend with 6 (who is TTC #7 now) and one who
jsut announced she's pregnant with #3. *Everyone* else I know only has 2.
I think finances play a part in that.

We always knew we'd have more than 2 but I can't say *how* we knew we'd have
more, or even *why* we knew we wanted more. I still feel like 3 isn't
enough though.

Good luck deciding, it *is* hard.

[Nina]

"Mary Gordon" > wrote in message
om...
> We have three. I always thought I would have two, but after the second
> was born, I just had a niggling feeling we were missing someone. Not
> rational - but I just didn't feel the family was complete quite yet.
> Who knows the deep psychological reasons - doubtless a shrink would
> have a field day, but we'd had two sons, and I dunno if I would have
> felt the same if one of those two was a girl.. I don't THINK I would,
> but who knows since that isn't what happened and we don't get to
> replay our lives with interesting changes!
>
> I should mention that baby #2 was the infant from hell - turns out
> years later he was diagnosed with a high functioning form of autism,
> which explains a LOT about the challenges he presented as a baby. If
> having my hands full should have convinced me to not have another
> child, he would have done it - but.....

My very 1st is autistic, pretty high functioning though weak verbally. I
thank GOD I didnt get scared and stop after him. If I hadnt had his sister
when I did, I wouldnt have gotten pregnant again after his diagnosis and
having her has made parenting worhtwhile. I dont mean he is worthless, just
that for years there was much more pain than rewards having her allowed me
to also enjoy some of the pleasant parts of parenting. Now that he is older
and much better, I am glad he has her. (as I type he is trying to grab my
face and kiss me, I think they read my mind at times)


> DH took a while to think about it. I kept my mouth shut because I
> didn't want him to feel cornered but clearly he wasn't 100% sure
> either, since we'd agreed that he would go for the snip when we were
> done. So...one fine day when #2 was a toddler, we had the talk about
> another one...and , four years after #2 we had #3, and shortly
> thereafter, he did get "fixed". By the way, I had #1 at 34, #2 at 37
> and #3 at 41.
>
> We have the right family for us, and we are very glad we went for #3.
> It is very hard to gauge how hard parenthood will be when kids are
> small, and very high maintenance. You really have to think big picture
> long term. For example, when we had #3, #1 was seven years old, and
> considerably more independent than a baby, toddler or preschooler, so
> the work wasn't as demanding as it would be with 3 under the age of 5
> for example (one of my neighbours had 3 in 4 years and I think THAT
> would have killed me, but a 7 year spread was do-able)..
>
> Now they are 12, 9 and 5 and it works beautifully, and in a lot of
> ways, we've realized that once you have two, your lives are pretty
> much set up around kids, and you really could add more without it
> being a major big deal. I find three managable, and knowing what I
> know now - if I were younger and more kids were physically possible,
> it would have been no biggie to have a fourth.

For me the hardest thing was accepting that I would be tied down again. Mine
will be 10,8 and newborn and to an extent I'd gotten used to having some
freedom. Now I'm back in the saddle again with a baby. But since #1 will
always need supervision, its not like I am losing THAT much freedom, I just
have to find a better babysitter. :)
I also had gotten incredibly in shape and am not looking forward to being
fat. At 22 losing the weight was no biggie, at 33 I suspect I may have to
work to get back into a size 6.

)

[Sue]

I have three girls ages 10, 8 and 6. I think that having three is really not
the greatest, at least for us. It is an odd number and there is someone
always left out. I think I would have either stopped at two or had one more
to make it even. I know it is more the temperment of the children that
really makes or breaks a family, but having three just means that there is
always an odd man out. They play okay when they are all together, but much
better when there is only two. Certainly having three rocked my world. They
are so close together, perhaps having the third child older than my last
two, may be much better. It is very hectic now that they are all in school.
The preschool years were the hardest for me because I was constantly going
back and forth to school to drop one off or pick one up. It is more
expensive now that they are in school. Three lunches, three milks, three
extracurricular expenses. For us, it is very expensive. Perhaps that is not
an issue for your family, but it sure is for ours. Having said all this, I
love big families. I wish I had more patience for it.

Good luck at whatever you decide.
--
Sue
mom to three girls

Alphawave > wrote in message
...
> I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
> done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
> misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
> swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
> other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
> poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
> experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(
>
> On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
> have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
> another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
> bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
> expenses.
>
> Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
> boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
> me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
> on bringing more of that joy to all of us?
>
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?
>
> -- Alpha
> <thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Jan Silbermann]

In article >,
Sophie > wrote:
>
>I do think we'd have to think really hard if we needed a new vehicle or a
>new house if we had another child. We've often joked our friends had enough
>when they had 5 considering having #6 meant they needed a 15 passenger van!
>
uWell, we now have an extra seat in out minivan
since we took out the two seater bench
and replaced it with a three seater from the junk yard.
So, 15 passenger van is not necessary- tell them that (-:


Jan
mom
to Tovah 13
Eliana 11
Asher 8
David 5
Shoshana 3

[Andrea]

I am not finished and I have had 5 babies so far. I am not ready to throw in
the towel yet. I will be devestated when I no longer can have kids.
I have 4 boys and a girl and another girl would be so nice, but we got a boy
then a girl, then 3 boys in a row....

--
Andrea mom of 5 - latest addition Kamron David 12 weeks old weighing 16
pounds.
Fave quote "Mother is the word for God on the lips and hearts of children"
from the film "The Crow".

"Alphawave" > wrote in message
...
> I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
> done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
> misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
> swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
> other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
> poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
> experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(
>
> On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
> have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
> another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
> bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
> expenses.
>
> Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
> boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
> me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
> on bringing more of that joy to all of us?
>
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?
>
> -- Alpha
> <thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Sophie]

"Jan Silbermann" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Sophie > wrote:
> >
> >I do think we'd have to think really hard if we needed a new vehicle or a
> >new house if we had another child. We've often joked our friends had
enough
> >when they had 5 considering having #6 meant they needed a 15 passenger
van!
> >
> uWell, we now have an extra seat in out minivan
> since we took out the two seater bench
> and replaced it with a three seater from the junk yard.
> So, 15 passenger van is not necessary- tell them that (-:
>
>
> Jan
> mom
> to Tovah 13
> Eliana 11
> Asher 8
> David 5
> Shoshana 3

Sorry, wouldn't work now - they're working on #7 :0

Plus if your vehicle fits your family *exactly* the kids could never bring
friends with them. Our van seats 8 so we have a bit of extra room.

[Daye]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:00:11 GMT, Alphawave >
wrote:

>So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
>at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
>mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
>the right one?

Well, this is it. We stop at #2. We were quite happy with only our
DD, but decided that we should try for a sibling for her. Even if it
didn't happen, we thought we should try. Well, we did try, and it
worked.

Before I was pregnant with #2, we talked about how many we would have.
We decided on 2. We knew we could afford to have 2, but 3 would be
pushing it. (If an accident happens and there is a #3, we will keep
the baby.) Both DH and I come from 2 kid families. 2 just seemed
right.

I am a horrible person to be around when pregnant. I have hard
pregnancies. I admit that I am a HUGE PITA, and my DH is saint. When
we found out I was pregnant with #2, he said, "I am NOT going through
another pregnancy with you." It is just as well because I had decided
to have my tubes done anyway.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004

[Taniwha grrrl]

"Alphawave" > wrote in message


> -- Alpha
> <thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>

I may not be the best person to answer this as I'm deciding
when will be the best time to have #12 and Lydia is only 6
weeks old today...lol
But like Sophie said, there's no reason you have to have #3
soon. You can wait a few years, financially plan and save
for a bigger car if that's what you need, and wait until
your other two are older and more self sufficient.
In my own observations, if people are thinking this
seriously about it odds are fairly high you'll have a third,
it's just picking the right gap that's good for your family
before you welcome #3 :o)


--
Andrea

If I can't be a good example, then I'll just have to be a
horrible warning.

[Daye]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:30:14 +1200, "Taniwha grrrl"
> wrote:

>I may not be the best person to answer this as I'm deciding
>when will be the best time to have #12 and Lydia is only 6
>weeks old today...lol

If these is questions are too personal, just tell me to mind my own
business. I admit that I know nothing about large families. To me, 4
kids is a large family.

With 11 kids, what car do you drive? Is it possible to load all 11
kids into one car/van?

Also, does the whole family ever go out to eat together?

We are expecting #2 (and last). It is already very expensive for us
to go out to eat, and DD is only a toddler. With 2 kids, we will not
have to buy another car. We couldn't afford another car anyway. I
don't see how we could afford another child after this one. Although
my mother told me, if you have a #3, you will find a way to afford all
of your kids. She is probably right.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004

[larissa]

After a second c-section with number 2. I had decided 2 was enough. I
had always wanted 3, I am one of 3 and so is DH, but I thought 2 would
be it. We have a girl and boy a was very busy with a 25month gap between
them. DH said he wanted 4, but I always thought that would be too many
for me.

I always treated DS's babyhood as if it were the last I would
experience. I never wished he would hurry up and reach a particular
milestone.

However, when he got to be about 18months old, the stirrings began, you
know, you start to think about the practicalities of another, holding a
newborn in your arms and smelling their heads, tiny fingers and toes. I
was trying to be practical though, 2 was manageable, not as expensive
and I felt I could give both of them plenty of attention and time.

For six months, I thought about the pros and cons. Occasionally I would
talk about it with my DH. Finally I made up my mind, yes it would be
more expensive, but our car was big enough and for the moment the house
was too. I was thinking about the future and how good it was to have 2
siblings. I told Dh I was ready to have another baby. But with all my
pros and cons I had convinced him that 2 was enough. DOH! I hoped he
would change his mind and didn't want to push the issue.

DH's brother and his wife told us they were expecting a second child.
This brought up the subject again about having another. We talked about
it all again and he decided he didn't want to move on and then wonder
and regret not having another child, we thought we could afford a third
and about how much joy the kids have brought to our lives. So we decided
we would try for another, I was so ecstatic.

I got pregnant within days of the decision being made. I think this
child did not want us to change our minds again. I am due early Dec.

Larissa

DD Feb 99
DS Mar 01
Due Dec 03

[aps]

Both my wife and I have 2 siblings, and we're planning on 2, if not
just 1.

Before I had my daughter, I'd see large family piling out of a van and
think, "every one of those kids is going to need a building to live
in." I'd imagine a six-unit housing development at my favorite hiking
trailhead. Of course, I would never give up Avery, and I'd feel the
same with my sixth or tenth. But in terms of resources, both family and
public, I think a smaller family is right for me.

In _What's Going On In There?_, a book about brain development, there's
a statistic that a child's IQ is lower relative to how many older
siblings it has. In other words, the more kids one has, the less
opportunities the youngest have to develop mentally. As the youngest of
3, I feel a little confused by that statistic :-) In any case, an older
child gets an IQ boost by having a younger sibling.

APS

[Alphawave]

cara says:

> So I've made the
> decision to not make any final decisions until #2 is 1 year old....then
> I think I'll have a better grasp on if we want any more kids.

That's what I was trying to do -- after all, #2 is still only 4 mos. old;
if we were definitely going to ttc, we wouldn't start for at least a year.
But in idle moments I find myself thinking about it.

> I keep telling my husband that if we have a really mellow 2nd
> child there's a slim chance of a 3rd, but if this one is anything like
> the 3 year old, we are DONE!

Both of my kids have been relatively easy so far, no colic, not much
crying in general. The first is and always has been a little tough with
sleep, but no big deal in the scheme of things. I sometimes think I
shouldn't have a 3rd because maybe *that* one will be the tough one!

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Mary says:

> We have three. I always thought I would have two, but after the second
> was born, I just had a niggling feeling we were missing someone.

That resonates with me -- I guess it would, since I'm starting to feel
that #3 is a possibility. But I'm trying not to allow myself to think
that there's a hole where #3 should be. :-)

> By the way, I had #1 at 34, #2 at 37
> and #3 at 41.

This would be more or less the same for me -- #1 at 2 weeks shy of my 34th
birthday, #2 just 5 days after my 36th birthday; #3 wouldn't be any sooner
than my 38th birthday. I would rather get all the baby-making done before
I'm 40; I already feel decrepit enough as it is. ;-)

> It is very hard to gauge how hard parenthood will be when kids are
> small, and very high maintenance. You really have to think big picture
> long term.

Yes! And that's so hard to do. I have no idea what Eamon will be like at
~5 years of age, nor Quinn at ~3 years, nor my job as SAHM at that point.
It's really hard to envision.

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

aps says:

> In _What's Going On In There?_, a book about brain development, there's
> a statistic that a child's IQ is lower relative to how many older
> siblings it has. In other words, the more kids one has, the less
> opportunities the youngest have to develop mentally. As the youngest of
> 3, I feel a little confused by that statistic :-)

lol. I think my family confounds the research. I'm the youngest of 5.
;-)

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Sue says:

> I have three girls ages 10, 8 and 6. I think that having three is
> really not the greatest, at least for us. It is an odd number and there
> is someone always left out.

Interesting. I've heard about the kids-outnumbering-the-parents problem,
but I never thought about someone always being left out. DH is one of 3
boys, and they're all so different and into different things, so I don't
get the sense it was a problem for them.

The expense thing, I hear you on that. We're only now seeing how
expensive it will be, even though Quinn is able to wear all of Eamon's
hand-me-downs (they're all even in the right season at the right time,
since their birthdays are only 3 weeks apart).

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Ericka says:

> I couldn't help laughing out loud at your post--that is
> *SO* where we were years ago! And you know what came of that!

LOL! Uh oh! ;-)

> Genevieve arrived just before Colin turned 6yo and
> it's gone really well. I didn't mind having a newborn
> and a toddler the first time around, but this time it
> is so nice to have the older kids old enough to be more
> independent. Plus, they'll both be in school full day
> this year, which leaves plenty of time for one-on-one
> baby time during the day (though I have to steal some
> of that for work).

I think that would be wonderful, but I don't feel that I have that
opportunity. When Quinn is 6, I'll be 42. I guess part of the constraint
I feel is that if I'm going to have a 3rd, that effectively means I'll
have 3 under the age of 5. That just sounds *hard*.

Thanks for listing out the things you considered. It's helpful to hear
how others thought this decision through. But was there ever a time, in
your heart, where you didn't know whether you wanted #3? It seems in a
way that if you have to ask yourself whether you want a 3rd, the question
you're really asking is not whether you want it but whether you can make
it happen or make it work, kwim?

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Sophie says:

> I do think we'd have to think really hard if we needed a new vehicle or
> a new house if we had another child.

Yes, that's definitely a big factor. We have a Corolla right now, which
we love, but that thing is history if we have a 3rd. And we live in a 2-
br condo -- doable with 2 boys, but add one more child of either gender
and forget it. I'm not someone who needs a lot of stuff or even a lot of
space, but there are limits.

> We always knew we'd have more than 2 but I can't say *how* we knew we'd
> have more, or even *why* we knew we wanted more.

We always said we'd have 2, *maybe* 3. But I remember you said you saw me
with 2 boys. Maybe you should tell me how accurate "psychic Sophie" has
been. ;-)

> Good luck deciding, it *is* hard.

Thanks. :-)

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Andrea says:

> In my own observations, if people are thinking this
> seriously about it odds are fairly high you'll have a third,
> it's just picking the right gap that's good for your family
> before you welcome #3 :o)

:-D It does seem that way, doesn't it??

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Fia]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:00:11 GMT, Alphawave >
wrote:

>So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
>at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
>mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
>the right one?

These decisions are really tough ones. We decided to not decide. In
other words, we didn't use BC and we didn't TTC. We just lived our
lives and let nature (or, as we prefer to think of it, God) take it's
course.

Not an overwhelmingly popular route, I realize, but it has brought us
a great deal of peace and we're convinced that what has happened is
the absolutely best thing.

As many folks here know, that just not using BC isn't always enough to
conceive. It took us over three years, and I lost my first.

We will have more or not as it happens. If the expenses start
mounting, we will simply do without some of life's luxuries to raise
healthy and happy children. A lot of families get by on a lot less
than we have.

Best of luck and joy to you whatever you decide.
--
Help the women of Afganistan
http://www.rawa.org/

"You despise me, don't you?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."

[Nikki]

Alphawave wrote:
> Sue says:
>
>> I have three girls ages 10, 8 and 6. I think that having three is
>> really not the greatest, at least for us. It is an odd number and
>> there is someone always left out.
>
> Interesting. I've heard about the kids-outnumbering-the-parents
> problem, but I never thought about someone always being left out. DH
> is one of 3 boys, and they're all so different and into different
> things, so I don't get the sense it was a problem for them.

I wonder if that isn't a girl thing. My cousin has three girls (11,14,16)
and they deal with the odd man out thing. Although it has gotten better
recently mostly because the older girls are teens now and just always off
with friends. Dh is one of 5, the last three all boys. They never had that
problem either according to him and they are still close today.

even though Quinn is able to wear all of Eamon's
> hand-me-downs (they're all even in the right season at the right time,
> since their birthdays are only 3 weeks apart).

Heh, I managed that as well but Hunter was so big that sometimes things were
a bit off for Luke as a baby. It isn't so bad now but things aren't in
great shape by now either.

Since you are SAHM you don't have to worry about daycare but that is a
killer. Financially we could just never survive daycare for three kids.

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

[Cheryl]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:00:11 GMT, Alphawave >
wrote:

>I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
>done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
>misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
>swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
>other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
>poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
>experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(
>
>On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
>have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
>another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
>bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
>expenses.
>
>Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
>boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
>me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
>on bringing more of that joy to all of us?
>
>So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
>at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
>mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
>the right one?

I decided on 2 kids when I was pregnant with #1. When he was born I
thought I would like to have 4 :) DH was adamant that there would be
no more than 3 since he comes from a family of 3 and worried about the
logistics of more than 3 children (automatically requires a people
mover/4wd car, kids generally have to share a bedroom, more school
fees, etc). If he had agreed at that point to 4, we would have had
the boys at the age gap they are now and then waited about 3 years
before conceiving #3. Since he had said no more than 3 and #3 was a
surprise pregnancy anyway the age gaps have ended up much of a
muchness. Now that #3 is 1 he's agreed that babies are fun and the
logistical stuff really isn't that bad so #4 is back on the agenda,
probably when #2 goes to school in early 2006.

I think in a lot of cases men think of how much extra children will
cost financially and women think of how much extra children can bring
to the family. In an ideal world where finances didn't matter there
would still be a lot of women having no more than 1 or 2 children tops
(my SIL for one, she has definitely decided that her son won't be
getting a sibling) and that's fine for them. What you probably want
to consider is how you would cope with 3 kids rather than how much 3
kids would cost. Personally I found going from 2 to 3 pretty simple,
much easier than my neighbours and my sister who have recently gone
from 1 to 2. And FWIW the first baby was easy, the second was easier,
and the third has been the easiest yet. Toddlers on the other
hand........

I'm still not sure that my decision to have 4 children is the right
one but the choice to have 3 seems to have been a bonus for my entire
family. DH is absolutely besotted with his daughter, I am madly in
love with her, the boys think it's great that she loves them so much
and she is apparently happy and content to live with us. If she'd
been another boy I like to believe we would all still think the same
way but that's not what happened. Oh, and when I mentioned to my GP
that I was considering a #4 he told me that he'd talked his wife out
of #4 and now that his kids were in high school he regretted it. It's
usually not what you do that you regret, it's what you _don't_ do.

--
Cheryl
Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00)
and DD (30 Jul 02)

[Anne Rogers]

>
> My husband is all geared up to try now, but to be honest on pregnancy number
> 5 I really felt the difference, the aches and pains were worse, and the
> irritable uterus was hell, and all the joint pain, and it's not my age i'm
> almost 26. Also I am on a different planet when i'm pregnant, to be blunt
> i'm a super-bitch!

I'm not sure age is anything to do with it, of the other pregnant women I
met/knew, I think I had one of the most difficult pregnancies,
particularly in the area of joint/back aches and pain, I'm 23, which I
read somewhere is the optimum age for the mum!

We're definitely planning number 2 and due to not having figured out any
contraception we like, it might be soonish! We have an idea in our minds
that we might then wait til they are both at school and have another 2
close together, but that might not happen, either we won't be able to wait
that long, or we'll dcide we don't want more.

[zeldabee]

Alphawave > wrote:
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?

Well, I know my view isn't likely to be popular in this NG, and my own
situation is very different from most of the posters here in that I'm not
married and my pregnancy was unplanned, *and* I'm 40 years old...but...

I would not choose to have more than 2 on general principle. As a long-time
environmental activist, I strongly feel that most of the problems facing us
as a species go back to the fact that there are just too damn many of us.
I'm convinced that we are approaching, or have already exceeded, the
carrying capacity of the planet. I think life is going to be tough for my
son, and for future generations even if we all collectively come to our
senses *now*.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people not to have kids at all, but
I really feel that to intentionally set out to have a large family is
profoundly irresponsible. (This is one of the reasons I'm not a practicing
Catholic, even though the Catholic community my own mother lives in makes a
huge positive difference in her life, and by extention, mine. I'm not
hostile to the church at all, but that's one of the biggest sticking points
for me.)

These are apart from my personal reason for not intending to have even a
second child--I'm already 40, and besides, I can't support another child.

Sorry if I'm being too blunt, and my post isn't directed personally at any
poster here.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

[zeldabee]

Anne Rogers > wrote:
> > I would not choose to have more than 2 on general principle. As a
> > long-time environmental activist, I strongly feel that most of the
> > problems facing us as a species go back to the fact that there are just
> > too damn many of us. I'm convinced that we are approaching, or have
> > already exceeded, the carrying capacity of the planet. I think life is
> > going to be tough for my son, and for future generations even if we all
> > collectively come to our senses *now*.
>
> I'm not sure how it balances out overall, but the way things work here in
> the UK we are apparently at risk of a top heavy population with not
> enough working age people to support the pensioners, this is due to
> decreasing birth rate and increasing age of first time motherhood. I used
> to think I should do my bit and only have 2 children, now I've seen so
> many contradictory articles I'm not so sure anymore.

Well, obviously I'm not talking about pensions or other human economic
systems...I'm talking about the carrying capacity of the earth, which is,
after all, a complex closed system. Social security is all well and good
until, say, there's a plankton crash or something similar at the bottom of
the food chain...

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

[Nina]

"Anne Rogers" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > My husband is all geared up to try now, but to be honest on pregnancy
number
> > 5 I really felt the difference, the aches and pains were worse, and the
> > irritable uterus was hell, and all the joint pain, and it's not my age
i'm
> > almost 26. Also I am on a different planet when i'm pregnant, to be
blunt
> > i'm a super-bitch!
>
> I'm not sure age is anything to do with it, of the other pregnant women I
> met/knew, I think I had one of the most difficult pregnancies,
> particularly in the area of joint/back aches and pain, I'm 23, which I
> read somewhere is the optimum age for the mum!

Then at 33 it would probably be worse,lol. My frist 2 were born when I was
22 and 24, this one will be born when I am 32. EVERYTHING is worse now.
Owwwww

[Ericka Kammerer]

Alphawave wrote:


> Thanks for listing out the things you considered. It's helpful to hear
> how others thought this decision through. But was there ever a time, in
> your heart, where you didn't know whether you wanted #3? It seems in a
> way that if you have to ask yourself whether you want a 3rd, the question
> you're really asking is not whether you want it but whether you can make
> it happen or make it work, kwim?


There really were times I wasn't sure I wanted a
third...and times I wondered if I just wanted a girl,
and times I wondered if I just wanted another baby (but
not another *child*), and so forth.

I think what helped for me was to give myself
permission to wait until the time was right. I knew that
waiting might lead to missing out. It could have taken
so long to feel ready that we'd have missed the opportunity
(whether biologically or just because it was too late in
the game for us to be willing to have another child). I
felt that that was a reasonable price to pay, since it
would hardly have been a disaster to stick with the two
wonderful children we already had.
There were times when I felt anxious about wanting
to get the decision made, especially as we were holding
on to all the baby stuff! But I kept feeling that the
time wasn't yet right for us. But then we got to the
point that were were *both* willing *and* able to have
a third, and that was when we sat down to make the
decision about whether we would, in fact, have a third.
In some ways I don't think it makes sense to worry about
making the decision before you get to the point where
it's a realistic decision to make. Until you both want
a third and your life situation is such that it would
be *possible*, it's a relatively meaningless choice.
We all have different criteria for what makes it "possible,"
of course. For instance, I wouldn't want to have a
third in a too-small home (where too-small is a very
personal decision!) or if I *couldn't* get a minivan
if I wanted one. And, obviously, the "need" home may
be smaller than the "want" home. But I felt like we
needed to achieve a certain level for #3 to be *possible*
while maintaining the minimum standards. Only after
that point does it become a question of tradeoffs.
As you point out, you can't even imagine
what things will be like a couple of years from now,
especially as you're in a new place. I think you can
run yourself totally ragged trying to make this decision
before you have a clue what your reality will be like
when the time comes that you can implement any plan.
You might come across decisions in the next year or
two where you'll have to decide whether to preserve
your option to have another child or give it up (say,
if you buy a house and don't want to be in a position
where you'd really *have* to upgrade in only a couple
years), but other than that you can really just let it
sit.
I tried to learn to revel in the maybe/maybe not
stage, where all things are possibilities ;-) Sometimes
I was more successful than others, but it kept me from
ripping my hair out until we finally made a decision
and acted on it!

Take care,
Ericka

[Sue]

It's probably really different when the three are girls and very close in
age. If I would of had a boy in the mix, it probably would be fine.
--
Sue
mom to three girls

Alphawave > wrote in message
...
> Sue says:
>
> > I have three girls ages 10, 8 and 6. I think that having three is
> > really not the greatest, at least for us. It is an odd number and there
> > is someone always left out.
>
> Interesting. I've heard about the kids-outnumbering-the-parents problem,
> but I never thought about someone always being left out. DH is one of 3
> boys, and they're all so different and into different things, so I don't
> get the sense it was a problem for them.
>
> The expense thing, I hear you on that. We're only now seeing how
> expensive it will be, even though Quinn is able to wear all of Eamon's
> hand-me-downs (they're all even in the right season at the right time,
> since their birthdays are only 3 weeks apart).
>
> -- Alpha
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Laurie]

>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:00:11 GMT, Alphawave >
>wrote:
>
>>So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
>>at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
>>mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
>>the right one?

Well, put it this way. We've had two and I *definitely* don't feel done.
However, the thought of getting pregnant right now isn't exactly a good one.
;) I feel almost certain we'll have one more, my husband gets a little
nauseous looking whenever anyone mentions another one, but I think in a few
years he will want one more. It's always been left "open" that we'd
possibly have a third. We do know for sure, though, that we'd like a
larger age gap for the third. I wouldn't change anything about the gap
between Jessica and Christopher - it's exactly what we wanted - but we've
always said we'd have the first two close, and then a larger space before
the hypothetical third child. Probably a 3 or 4 year difference.

laurie
mommy to Jessica, 29 months
and Christopher, 4 months

*This email address is now valid*


>
>These decisions are really tough ones. We decided to not decide. In
>other words, we didn't use BC and we didn't TTC. We just lived our
>lives and let nature (or, as we prefer to think of it, God) take it's
>course.
>
>Not an overwhelmingly popular route, I realize, but it has brought us
>a great deal of peace and we're convinced that what has happened is
>the absolutely best thing.
>
>As many folks here know, that just not using BC isn't always enough to
>conceive. It took us over three years, and I lost my first.
>
>We will have more or not as it happens. If the expenses start
>mounting, we will simply do without some of life's luxuries to raise
>healthy and happy children. A lot of families get by on a lot less
>than we have.
>
>Best of luck and joy to you whatever you decide.
>--
>Help the women of Afganistan
>http://www.rawa.org/
>
>"You despise me, don't you?"
>"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."

[Laurie]

Cheryl wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 02:23:28 GMT, Alphawave >
>wrote:
>>
>>We always said we'd have 2, *maybe* 3. But I remember you said you saw me
>>with 2 boys. Maybe you should tell me how accurate "psychic Sophie" has
>>been. ;-)
>>
>Sophie saw me with only boys.....
>
>
>--
>Cheryl
>Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00)
>and DD (30 Jul 02)


And me with only girls............. (sorry, Sophie!)

laurie
mommy to Jessica, 29 months
and Christopher, 4 months

*This email address is now valid*

[Mary Gordon]

I dunno about the US, Gwen, but here in Canada, the birthrate is 1.6
and falling, and replacement is 2.1.

Mary G.

[Mary Gordon]

Disregard my previous posting - just checked and the birth rate in
Canada was down to 1.49 in 2002.

If the trend is anything like that in the US, y'all are going to have
to change your immigration policies or you'll be faced with a big pile
of old people and no one to look after them (i.e. a shrinking
population). Nothing wrong with that, but it means if you want
stability, you have to open the doors a bit wider - lets put your
money where your mouth is with respect to global problems. At the
moment, Canada takes in a much larger number per population (our
routine rate is 7 plus per 1000, trending to 10), and the US is under
4 per 1000 and yes, some interesting social issues go with higher
immigration. You end up with the cultural mosaic instead of the
melting pot, at least for the first couple of generations.


Mary G.

[Daye]

On 01 Sep 2003 12:08:54 GMT, zeldabee >
wrote:

>I would not choose to have more than 2 on general principle. As a long-time
>environmental activist, I strongly feel that most of the problems facing us
>as a species go back to the fact that there are just too damn many of us.

In Australia, the government is encouraging woman to give birth. The
problem apparently is that more woman are choosing not to have
children or only have 1 child. Woman are also waiting longer to have
children. The birth rate in Australia has gone down consistently for
at least the last 10 years. Since 1974, Australians are even having
enough babies to replace those people who died (not that a baby
replaces a dead person)

Our Prime Minister (who I loathe) was telling woman not so very long
ago that in order to be a good Australian, they must produce children.

I am not saying that the PM is right or that woman should or shouldn't
be having children. However, in some places, the fact that there are
too many humans doesn't seem to be as big of an issue.

There is a very interesting article on the Australian Bureau of
Statistics website about trends in Australian fertility:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/B2D40FE49306CC67CA2569D00016436E?Open&Highlight=0,birth

or use: http://tinyurl.com/lwb8


--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004

[Alphawave]

Fia says:

> These decisions are really tough ones. We decided to not decide. In
> other words, we didn't use BC and we didn't TTC.

For us, that kind of deciding not to decide would de facto mean we had
decided to have another. We conceived on first try without BC both times.
Not to say that it would definitely happen that way again, but... :-)

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Mary says:

> I don't have any helful advice about two vs. three, but I know that
> feeling of missing each moment as soon as it's gone. Bittersweet. :)

Yes, yes, yes. :-)

> Good luck with whatever you decide; I don't think there's a wrong
> decision in this case, for you.

Thanks, Mary.

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Cheryl says:

> It's
> usually not what you do that you regret, it's what you _don't_ do.

Yes, I think it would be so sad to be beyond the childbearing years and
feel I made the wrong choice about sticking with 2. I'm not sure it's
likely I would feel that regret very acutely, but you do inevitably wonder
about the roads not taken.

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Gwen says:

> Plus, as far as the original poster goes, IMO, she says things are
> comfortable as they are now. Finances aren't too strained, mentally
> she isn't too strained. But aside from just plain wanting #3, why
> should she push it?

Push what? If I knew we couldn't swing it financially or thought that I
couldn't be a happy mother to 3 the way I am to 2, there would have been
no post to mkp in the first place. :-) These 2 children we have now have
brought infinitely more love and joy to us than we could ever have
imagined possible. Don't people usually want more of what they discover
to be wonderful?

> Enjoy being comfortable and not having to worry
> about getting a bigger house, a bigger car.

I don't worry about getting a bigger car or home -- I simply understand
those things to be necessary and desirable (respectively) if we decide to
have a 3rd, and that has to be taken into consideration.

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Ericka says:

> I think what helped for me was to give myself
> permission to wait until the time was right. I knew that
> waiting might lead to missing out.

I think what makes me think so much of it right now is that the first year
is so full of changes, and each new thing that comes along means some
beloved thing goes by the wayside. Then I realize: my gosh, this could
be the last [fill in the blank]. And naturally I wonder -- does this
bittersweet feeling mean I'm not done yet even though I had thought maybe
I was; or does it just mean, hey, it's hard to let go. :-)

> I felt that that was a reasonable price to pay, since it
> would hardly have been a disaster to stick with the two
> wonderful children we already had.

Indeed. :-)

> In some ways I don't think it makes sense to worry about
> making the decision before you get to the point where
> it's a realistic decision to make.

Oh no, we're not looking to make a decision at this moment. But hearing
how other people have thought about this issue helps at this moment just
because I have it on my mind so much. It helps me square away some of the
mental clutter and see the issue more clearly.

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Sandi]

What a great thread! These are exactly the questions my DH and I have been
struggling with! We talked (again) this weekend and think that yes, we
definitely want to try for a 3rd and are ready now. But we both agree that
there are days that we think 2 kids is more than enough. I'm also a SAHM to
two toddlers, and we will also need a bigger car (although I think that's
going to happen regardless of whether we get pregnant or not). But I just
don't feel *done* with our family and neither does my DH, so we're going to
go for it. I'll let you know how it goes!

--
Sandi
Mommy to Abby, almost 3!
and Natalie, 13 months
TTC #3


"Alphawave" > wrote in message
...
> I'm only 4.5 mos. postpartum but I can't stop thinking about whether we're
> done with making babies! Every time Quinn leaves something behind, I get
> misty-eyed about it. No more gummy grins, no more coos, no more
> swaddling, all the newborn clothing is packed away now, etc., etc. The
> other day we watched some old videos of Eamon as a baby, and oh, it was so
> poignant for me. It really makes me sad to think that we might be
> experiencing the last of our baby days. :-(
>
> On the other hand... 3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
> have my hands full with 2 little ones (ages 2y5m and 4.5m). And if we had
> another, we'd have to buy a bigger car or a minivan, and we'd need a
> bigger place to live. And that would just be the start of all the extra
> expenses.
>
> Yet... I think it would be great for our two boys to have another sibling,
> boy or girl. And the amount of joy our second child has brought us makes
> me feel like, oh gosh, can I seriously accept the idea of closing the door
> on bringing more of that joy to all of us?
>
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?
>
> -- Alpha
> <thinking about this way too soon but I can't help it!>
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Nina]

"Daye" > wrote
>
> In Australia, the government is encouraging woman to give birth.

In Italy and Singapore as well.

[Ericka Kammerer]

Alphawave wrote:

> Ericka says:

>>In some ways I don't think it makes sense to worry about
>>making the decision before you get to the point where
>>it's a realistic decision to make.
>
> Oh no, we're not looking to make a decision at this moment. But hearing
> how other people have thought about this issue helps at this moment just
> because I have it on my mind so much. It helps me square away some of the
> mental clutter and see the issue more clearly.


Absolutely--and I've never been able to not think
about things ;-) But I did find that it was easier to
deal with if I could embrace being on the fence and see
it as a state with limitless possibilities rather than
feeling like there was an impending decision to be made
someday. Maybe it's six one way, a half dozen another,
but to me it made a big difference. One way I felt like
I had to keep making progress toward a decision, and
the other way I felt like I could try on all sorts of
ideas and theories and play with them. When I
had episodes of baby fever, I'd just tell myself I'd
have another someday--and when I had a day I'd just
as soon hang them up by their toenails, I'd tell myself
I was all done ;-)

Take care,
Ericka

[Fia]

On 01 Sep 2003 14:53:23 GMT, (GwenyP) wrote:

>Plus, as far as the original poster goes, IMO, she says things are comfortable
>as they are now. Finances aren't too strained, mentally she isn't too
>strained. But aside from just plain wanting #3, why should she push it? Enjoy
>being comfortable and not having to worry about getting a bigger house, a
>bigger car. In the end, that's more $$ for the two kids that she does have,
>not to mention that $$ can go into savings for retirement, better family
>vacations, etc. IMO, it does pay to be practical with certain things.

On the other hand, perhaps that "extra" money could go toward charity
and taking care of the millions who can't afford heat and food much
less a family vacation. After all, if we're going to talk about
environmentalism, we should discuss our level of consumption.

--
Help the women of Afganistan
http://www.rawa.org/

"You despise me, don't you?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."

[zeldabee]

"Nina" > wrote:
> "Daye" > wrote
> >
> > In Australia, the government is encouraging woman to give birth.
>
> In Italy and Singapore as well.

It's a bit silly and short-sighted of them, IMHO. I just can't see it as a
bad thing when the population growth slows or even reverses in some
countries. It's a global issue.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

[zeldabee]

Alphawave > wrote:
> zeldabee says:
>
> > I would not choose to have more than 2 on general principle. As a
> > long-time environmental activist, I strongly feel that most of the
> > problems facing us as a species go back to the fact that there are just
> > too damn many of us.
>
> Does it help us combat the replacement rate argument a bit if I point out
> that DH and I each have a sibling who will never have kids? ;-)

<shrug> If that works for you...it's entirely your decision. My Bloke
already has 4 children, so he's already gone over, there. (3 women, all of
whom have other children, too...I can't be bothered to do the math, it
boggles my little mind.) It's not that black-and-white...I just think it's
important, and should be considered when deciding whether or not to have
more children.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

[Circe]

"zeldabee" > wrote in message
...
> "Nina" > wrote:
> > "Daye" > wrote
> > > In Australia, the government is encouraging woman to give birth.
> >
> > In Italy and Singapore as well.
>
> It's a bit silly and short-sighted of them, IMHO. I just can't see it as a
> bad thing when the population growth slows or even reverses in some
> countries. It's a global issue.
>
The problem is that people in countries with falling birth rates (you can
add Japan and Germany to this list, as well and the US and Canada would be
on it as well if it weren't for immigration) can suffer fairly dramatic
economic hardship. No economy has ever grown or even held stable with a
shrinking population. It's easy to *say* you're in favor of reducing the
planet's population until you're actually dealing with the recessionary
pressures of a shrinking population.

There's no doubt that the best interests of the planet lie in keeping human
population at a reasonable limit. What that limit is, however, is difficult
to say. But by and large, it's not people in the developed countries who
have 3 (or even 4 or 5 or 12, like Andrea) children who are causing
population growth worldwide. Overall birth rates are so low in most
developed countries that the occasional large family doesn't have much
effect. The reason that human population has gone up so dramatically over
our lifetimes is because *very* large families are the norm in many
developing countries and survival has improved as well. A century ago, a
family in India or Vietnam might give birth to 12 children, but only 2 or 3
would make it to adulthood. Now, *most* them make it to adulthood. When
nearly *everyone* in a country has that many children making it to
adulthood, it has a profound effect on world population.

It's also hard to predict what's going to happen to world population going
forward. I believe population is lower now than it was predicted to be 20
years ago, in part because birth rates are dropping in some developing
nations (which is to be expected; rising education levels and increased
survivability tend to cause birth rates to drop, though it takes a couple of
generations for that drop to be felt in worldwide population), but also
because AIDS is literally decimating populations in sub-Saharan Africa. So
dire predictions about human population exceeding earth's capacity to
sustain it any time soon are probably overstated. And my bet is that we'll
continue to see declining birth rates in developing countries over the next
century. World population will continue to rise, but I suspect it will rise
by much less than has been envisioned.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with folks who choose to have 1 or 2
children in part because they see themselves as not contributing to world
overpopulation. That's part of your personal metric for childbearing, and
that's okay by me. It's just not part of *my* metric. But even if it were, I
work in a department with 15 other people. Most of them are now in their
late 30s to 50s. Between us, there are currently 9 children, of whom 1 is
adopted. One other person I know is planning to have children. The rest are
either gay (and therefore certainly not going to be making any kids), out of
their childbearing years altogether (and therefore unable to make 'em
without significant help, which they almost certainly couldn't afford), or
devotedly childfree. So I figure I could easily have a couple more kids and
we'd still have a population ratio well below 1:1!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [17mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"...we patiently sat by his door, waiting for it to open so he could tell us
all about who he had met" -- from _Uncle Andy's_ by James Warhola

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Circe]

"Alphawave" > wrote in message
...
> So those of you who have or want to have 3, those of you who have stopped
> at 2 (or plan to) -- what did you consider when you were making up your
> mind about this, and when did you know that your decision was absolutely
> the right one?

<Better late than never!>

I can't say that there was any one thing that tipped the balance in terms of
family size, and we're still actively considered whether or not to have a
4th, so I'm still in a position similar to yours in a way. I certainly share
your bittersweet feelings as each milestone is passed. I've thoroughly
enjoyed Vernon's infancy and toddlerhood, but they seem to be passing so
quickly and he's so much fun that I have a hard time thinking he's the
*last* baby or toddler I'll ever have.

Notwithstanding, my husband and I were both sure fairly shortly after our
first was born that we wanted more than two. At the time, we thought three.
Once our daughter was born, however, we started to genuinely consider the
possibility of four. (My joke is that I've always wanted two kids, it's just
the two I want are always the two I don't have yet! I have to say, though,
that now that I have three, five definitely exceeds my limits!) In our case,
my husband has always been the one more strongly on the larger family side
of the fence while I've tended to be less certain. Judging from this thread,
he's unusual, though. Housing and vehicles weren't a particular issue for
us, either--we have a 4-bedroom house and bought a minivan instead of a
passenger car when we reached the stage of needing a new vehicle anyway.

Now, cobbling together from a couple of other posts you've made:

> This would be more or less the same for me -- #1 at 2 weeks shy of my 34th
> birthday, #2 just 5 days after my 36th birthday; #3 wouldn't be any sooner
> than my 38th birthday. I would rather get all the baby-making done before
> I'm 40; I already feel decrepit enough as it is.

Being 39 myself, I understand having the feeling that you're sitting on a
ticking time bomb instead of a biological clock, but even if you want to be
done by the time you're 40, you could put 3 or even 3.5 years between kids
without hitting that limit. My first two are just shy of two years apart and
my second and third are a little more than 2.5 years apart. The 2.5 year gap
was actually harder in some ways (my daughter definitely *knew* she was
being supplanted in a way my oldest son did not), but the gap between the
4.5yo and the newborn was pretty great!

> When Quinn is 6, I'll be 42.

And you'll still be 42 when he turns 6 whether you have a third baby or not
<g>! I hadn't even thought about this before, but I'll be almost 42 when
Vernon turns 4. <shrug> The idea doesn't particularly bother me. I guess the
older I get, the less "old" 40 or 45 or even 50 seems to me. (What gives me
far more pause is the fact that I nearly died in July at a mere 39 years of
age!) It probably helps, however, that my husband is 6 years my senior and
therefore is *already* 45 and doesn't seem the slightest bit old.

Now, I have to admit, I'm sort of drawing a line for myself at around 42--I
figure if we haven't decided to have and actually conceived a child by the
time I'm a few months past 41, we won't be having a fourth. I don't
necessarily think there's any rational reason for having drawn that line; it
just helps me to have a cut-off point at which I have to consider the door
closed. But then I think of Clisby and my own grandmother (who had her last
when she was 47) and realize that's a pretty artificial line. After all, I
*used* to think, like you, that 40 was my cut-off!

> I guess part of the constraint
> I feel is that if I'm going to have a 3rd, that effectively means I'll
> have 3 under the age of 5. That just sounds *hard*.

Well, I have to tell you that three under 5 was a good deal easier than
three under 6 was! Life got dramatically more complicated, IMO, when Julian
started kindergarten last fall, and it's even more complicated now that he's
in first grade. Before he started school, we could pick up and do what we
wanted when we wanted. If he missed a week of preschool here or there, it
was no big deal. Now, it's a big issue. Not to mention the homework! If
there is anything that will put me off the idea of a Delta, it's the idea of
four kids with homework. I'm just hoping that my daughter, having a totally
different personality than my son, won't object to homework and fight it
quite so much. Maybe it'll be easy enough with her that it won't seem like
such a huge, looming issue with the others.

Seriously, though, even if you start out with three under 5, they won't all
be under 5 for very long. And the difference in what the oldest sibling will
be able to do at 4 or 4.5 and what he's currently able to do at 2.5 will be
pretty dramatic. If you have a third, you'll probably also find that your
middle child has more to occupy him when you're taking care of the baby than
your oldest does now, simply because the older sibling will be there to
entertain and play with him. This considerably lightens the load of the
third, because you don't feel like you're taking quite so much in the way of
attention from the toddler in order to meet the needs of the baby.

All of that said, I can't say there aren't times when I think life would be
easier had we stopped at two. I don't for one instant regret having the
third--I love them all to pieces and wouldn't have it any other way--but
every so often, I confess I think something like, "If we'd stopped at two,
we'd now be at a point where we didn't have any kids who needed literally
constant supervision and we could <fill in some activity that's either
difficult or impossible to do when you have a toddler>." I'm the sort of mom
who can't envision leaving an 18mo for a long weekend, either, so the
relentlessness of it does get to me occasionally. If I didn't work at all
and just took care of the kids 24/7, I do think I'd go a bit loopy, simply
because I wouldn't have any real opportunity to be "off-duty".

I have to say, though, I agree with those who've said if you're sitting the
fence, chances are pretty good you'll fall on the side of having the third.
I've never known anyone who did who regretted it.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Revolute your health" -- spam subject line

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[sher]

Alphawave > wrote >

> Both of my kids have been relatively easy so far, no colic, not much
> crying in general. The first is and always has been a little tough with
> sleep, but no big deal in the scheme of things. I sometimes think I
> shouldn't have a 3rd because maybe *that* one will be the tough one!
>
> -- Alpha
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

This was something DH brought up a lot when we were deciding on #3.
He felt we had been lucky so far and shouldn't chance rolling the dice
another time. He was more worried about complications, birth defects,
SIDS, etc. and since #3 has not arrived yet, he still doesn't feel
like we can breathe easy. I finally convinced him that you can't live
your life in fear of something bad happening.

The main reason we decided to have #3 was not that either of us baby
fever. In fact, neither of us were looking forward to having another
infant in the house. However, we looked down the road and decided we
wanted more than two adult children. We are from families of 5 and 6
kids, and can't imagine holiday gatherings where everyone can fit at
one table. We decided that the benefits of a larger family were worth
going back to the diapers and total dependency stage. We're 90% sure
that we will stop at 3, but I'm not going to completely rule it out
until after this one is a few years old.

Good luck with your decision.

~ Sher, due with boy #3 9/27/03

[GwenyP]

>Push what? If I knew we couldn't swing it financially or thought that I
>couldn't be a happy mother to 3 the way I am to 2, there would have been
>no post to mkp in the first place. :-) These 2 children we have now have
>brought infinitely more love and joy to us than we could ever have
>imagined possible. Don't people usually want more of what they discover
>to be wonderful?
>

You wanted opinions on what goes into each person's personal decisions, so
there you go. A lot of people here have mentioned the "emotional"
side......not feeling "done," etc. I'm just reiterating the practical side
because it is easy to lose sight of that with such a big issue.

From the original post: "3 would be a big deal. I'm a SAHM and I feel like I
have my hands full with 2 little ones."

You're answering your own question. That's why I mentioned, "Why push it?"
Sounds like you're at your limits now, at least for quite a while.

[GwenyP]

>On the other hand, perhaps that "extra" money could go toward charity
>and taking care of the millions who can't afford heat and food much
>less a family vacation.

Of course, that's a given. I was just making a point about spreading your
family resources too thin.

[aps]

In article <Ar25b.14152$n94.845@fed1read04>, Circe >
wrote:

> > > > In Australia, the government is encouraging woman to give birth.
> > >
> > > In Italy and Singapore as well.
> >
> > It's a bit silly and short-sighted of them, IMHO. I just can't see it as a
> > bad thing when the population growth slows or even reverses in some
> > countries. It's a global issue.
> >
> The problem is that people in countries with falling birth rates (you can
> add Japan and Germany to this list, as well and the US and Canada would be
> on it as well if it weren't for immigration) can suffer fairly dramatic
> economic hardship. No economy has ever grown or even held stable with a
> shrinking population. It's easy to *say* you're in favor of reducing the
> planet's population until you're actually dealing with the recessionary
> pressures of a shrinking population.

The thing is, a falling birth rate is not the same thing as a shrinking
population--and where both are happening, there's probably a good deal
of anti-immigrant activity in the government and elsewhere in society.
I don't disagree that it's not always good short-term economic policy
to favor immigration over high birth rates, but that kind of policy is
awfully kind to racist thought and to hints of fascism.

Of course, having more than 2 children doesn't make one a fascist. As
someone else already pointed out, our more immediate problem is
overconsumption, suburban sprawl and oversized vehicles, which are
harder to avoid for large families. Fortunately, it's a choice that
most all of us give a lot of thought to :-)

Something my cousin somewhat crudely told my wife: don't have any more
kids than you can raise on your own. More than one of my relatives have
wound up with a man who discovered that even a housefull of kids wasn't
enough to convince him to live up to his responsibilities >:-(

APS

[Sandy R]

Well this baby will be #5 my only regret is that there is 7 1/2 yrs
between first and second....But my 5 yr old and 3 yr old have always
gotten along wonderfully they say they are best friends :-) I am hoping
it will be the same with my 1 yr old and the baby due in Jan....There
will be a little over 18 months between the 2 of them the 5 and 3 yr old
have 19 months between.




~Have a Great Day!~

http://community.webtv.net/Dra223/OURHOUSEWIVES

http://community.webtv.net/Dra223/FAMILY

[Alphawave]

Ericka says:

> When I
> had episodes of baby fever, I'd just tell myself I'd
> have another someday--and when I had a day I'd just
> as soon hang them up by their toenails, I'd tell myself
> I was all done ;-)

lol! Probably just the same thing I'm going to have to do. :-)

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Sophie]

> Yes, somewhere close to my limit now, but the point of asking is to gauge
> the future, not the present. What I don't know is what it's like to have
> a child close to kindergarten age, a toddler, and a newborn. So I was
> hoping to hear from anyone who could tell me first-hand what their
> experience was/is like.

>Is it easier, because you're a more experienced
> mom at that point,

Yep.

>or the oldest child is in somewhat better position to
> help?

Yep.

> Is it just plain harder because more kids means more work?

Hhmm, I'd say no cos I'm more organized, cos I have to be.

>Or does
> it depend on the personalities of the kids?

Yep.

>Or do moms in this situation
> just tend to take greater advantage of things like pre-school, "mother's
> morning out", babysitting co-ops, cleaning service, etc.?

YES!! Lol.

>I'm not asking
> people what they think *I* can handle or what *I* should do; I'm asking
> what their experience is, and what knowledge or wisdom they can impart.
>
> -- Alpha
> alphawave at earthlink dot net

That help? ;)

I got what you were asking in your OP. I wonder the same about 4. I just
keep telling myself when #4 comes all the others will be that bit older,
that bit more self sufficient. Personally I think in some ways it gets
easier. Obviously in other ways it gets harder. This is my first time with
a 5 yr old. However when Patrick's 5 it'll be different again cos he's a
different kid. So far the challenges have been fun/do-able, obviously, or
we wouldn't have done it so many times ;)

[Alphawave]

Barbara says:

> Being 39 myself, I understand having the feeling that you're sitting on
> a ticking time bomb instead of a biological clock, but even if you want
> to be done by the time you're 40, you could put 3 or even 3.5 years
> between kids without hitting that limit.

Yeah, I could. And who knows, maybe when I get to that age I'll feel like
it's no big deal. But I do have those "advanced maternal age" concerns.
And I do wonder about stamina, how well I'd be able to keep up with them.

> Well, I have to tell you that three under 5 was a good deal easier than
> three under 6 was! Life got dramatically more complicated, IMO, when
> Julian started kindergarten last fall, and it's even more complicated
> now that he's in first grade. Before he started school, we could pick
> up and do what we wanted when we wanted. If he missed a week of
> preschool here or there, it was no big deal. Now, it's a big issue.

Yeah, I haven't really thought much in terms of what it would be like
throughout all of childhood -- I tend to think about that intense time
when #3 would be a newborn; and then the future, when they're all adults;
and only in passing do I think much about having to coordinate 3
children's schedules. Of course, I guess I tend to feel that by the time
they all have schedules, I'll be an old hand at all this. :-) (Naive,
eh??)

> Seriously, though, even if you start out with three under 5, they won't
> all be under 5 for very long. And the difference in what the oldest
> sibling will be able to do at 4 or 4.5 and what he's currently able to
> do at 2.5 will be pretty dramatic. If you have a third, you'll probably
> also find that your middle child has more to occupy him when you're
> taking care of the baby than your oldest does now, simply because the
> older sibling will be there to entertain and play with him. This
> considerably lightens the load of the third, because you don't feel
> like you're taking quite so much in the way of attention from the
> toddler in order to meet the needs of the baby.

I was wondering about this. It's such a zero-sum game right now because
everything revolves around me. When I'm attending to one, I can't very
well attend to the other, and I have to monitor it when Eamon is
interacting with Quinn. If it would continue that way, but divided 3 ways
instead of 2... ugh.

> All of that said, I can't say there aren't times when I think life
> would be easier had we stopped at two.

I guess one of the fundamental questions is, how much do I value the ease
and convenience that we would enjoy with 2 relative to 3, without really
knowing how much easier or more convenient 2 is than 3?

> I have to say, though, I agree with those who've said if you're sitting
> the fence, chances are pretty good you'll fall on the side of having
> the third. I've never known anyone who did who regretted it.

:-) I'm glad I have plenty of time to mull it over.

Thanks for your response, Barbara. You've put a dash of real life into
the picture and given me a few more things to think over. :-)

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Em]

"Nikki" > wrote in message
> Alphawave wrote:
> > Sue says:
> >
> >> I have three girls ages 10, 8 and 6. I think that having three is
> >> really not the greatest, at least for us. It is an odd number and
> >> there is someone always left out.
> >
> > Interesting. I've heard about the kids-outnumbering-the-parents
> > problem, but I never thought about someone always being left out. DH
> > is one of 3 boys, and they're all so different and into different
> > things, so I don't get the sense it was a problem for them.
>
> I wonder if that isn't a girl thing. My cousin has three girls (11,14,16)
> and they deal with the odd man out thing. Although it has gotten better
> recently mostly because the older girls are teens now and just always off
> with friends. Dh is one of 5, the last three all boys. They never had
that
> problem either according to him and they are still close today.
<snip>

My mom is one of three and feels pretty strongly that it isn't a good
number--they are two girls and a boy and she always cites that "odd man out"
phenomenon as being one of the reasons she didn't like being one of three.
My DH is one of three as well--boy, girl, boy--and doesn't feel that
strongly about it either way other than to feel like there was too big of an
age difference between him & his brother. He has also said that the three of
them would fight like crazy when they were all together, but be fine one on
one in any combination.

Just adding my anecdotal data points :-) We are still gestating #1, but have
talked about 3 as our final number. I feel fairly strongly that only two
children sounds like too small of a family to me (personally) and also I do
not want my kids to have only one adult sibling when grown up. Three sounds
like a good size--not too big, not too small. We may end up with four, when
all's said and done, or maybe just two after all! We've talked fairly
seriously about having two and then adopting the other hypothetical one or
two.

--
Em
edd 9/23/03
(37 weeks today!)

[Ericka Kammerer]

Alphawave wrote:


> Yes, somewhere close to my limit now, but the point of asking is to gauge
> the future, not the present. What I don't know is what it's like to have
> a child close to kindergarten age, a toddler, and a newborn.


I think it really depends on the person. I wasn't quite
ready at the time that spacing could have happened, but it would
have been easier than closer spacing.

> So I was
> hoping to hear from anyone who could tell me first-hand what their
> experience was/is like. Is it easier, because you're a more experienced
> mom at that point, or the oldest child is in somewhat better position to
> help?


Both were true for us. I'm far more organized now than
I was, and it helps a lot to have older children who are more
able to handle themselves.

> Is it just plain harder because more kids means more work?


There are times when more kids mean more work, but
on the other hand, there are times when more kids are *less*
work (because they occupy each other).

> Or does
> it depend on the personalities of the kids?


I'm sure this is a big part of it. Some kids just
demand more of you than others.

> Or do moms in this situation
> just tend to take greater advantage of things like pre-school, "mother's
> morning out", babysitting co-ops, cleaning service, etc.?


There are only 24 hours in a day, and taking advantage
of time savers does give you more time to do the things you
want to do. I'm a big fan of having groceries delivered ;-)
I have to say, though, that we chose pre-school more for
what it offered the kids than for time off (it doesn't add
up to much time off, especially when you consider the
transportation time and the time it takes to participate)--
although some days *any* time off seems important. And
so much also depends on your partner and how much he can
share in the parenting. It's a lot easier if the other
parent gets home at 5pm than at 8pm!

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Daye]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:03:13 -0700, aps > wrote:

>I don't disagree that it's not always good short-term economic policy
>to favor immigration over high birth rates, but that kind of policy is
>awfully kind to racist thought and to hints of fascism.

Well, in Australia, we have controlled and uncontrolled immigration.
If you are from NZ or you marry an Aussie, there is no limit to how
many migrate to Australia. However, if you are any other category,
there is a cap.

I married an Aussie so I didn't worry about numbers.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

[Ericka Kammerer]

Alphawave wrote:

> Barbara says:

>>Well, I have to tell you that three under 5 was a good deal easier than
>>three under 6 was! Life got dramatically more complicated, IMO, when
>>Julian started kindergarten last fall, and it's even more complicated
>>now that he's in first grade. Before he started school, we could pick
>>up and do what we wanted when we wanted. If he missed a week of
>>preschool here or there, it was no big deal. Now, it's a big issue.
>
> Yeah, I haven't really thought much in terms of what it would be like
> throughout all of childhood -- I tend to think about that intense time
> when #3 would be a newborn; and then the future, when they're all adults;
> and only in passing do I think much about having to coordinate 3
> children's schedules. Of course, I guess I tend to feel that by the time
> they all have schedules, I'll be an old hand at all this. :-) (Naive,
> eh??)


;-) I have to say that coordinating schedules is
*hard* with a first grader and a third grader. My only hope
is that by the time Genevieve's schedule starts ramping up,
Adrian and Colin will be managing a bit of their own
schedules. Obviously, they won't be driving, but I could
probably drop them off at the dance studio rather than
staying for the whole class, or we could carpool to soccer
practices with other families, etc. We could choose to do
less, and perhaps some would argue we *should* do less.
But at the moment the boys are doing what they love and
thriving on it and I'm still managing to keep up, so
we're forging ahead. It is tough to juggle activities and
homework, though. And it's not just the activities and
homework. There are all these demands that come with
school, too--lots of paperwork, helping out with the PTA,
helping out in the classroom, fundraising, projects, field
trips, book fairs, parties, etc. etc. etc. You can pick
and choose what you're going to do, and you don't have to
do everything, but I do feel like I ought to do *some* of
it. If you don't learn to say "no," you can get totally
sucked in and have no life.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Tatjana Farkin]

"Circe" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Ar25b.14152$n94.845@fed1read04...
> "zeldabee" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Nina" > wrote:
> > > "Daye" > wrote
> > > > In Australia, the government is encouraging woman to give birth.
> > >
> > > In Italy and Singapore as well.
> >
> > It's a bit silly and short-sighted of them, IMHO. I just can't see
it as a
> > bad thing when the population growth slows or even reverses in some
> > countries. It's a global issue.
> >
> The problem is that people in countries with falling birth rates (you
can
> add Japan and Germany to this list, as well and the US and Canada
would be
> on it as well if it weren't for immigration) can suffer fairly
dramatic
> economic hardship.

Yep, yep, yep. The health and pension systems must be reformed
thoroughly, but for the foreseeable future there won't be any change in
today's problem that there are too many pensioners and too few workers
for our system to work much longer. My husband pays a fifth of his
income to old-age pensioners.

--
Tatjana
PCOS - TTC #1 for 2 years

[Alphawave]

Sophie says:

> That help? ;)

Yep. ;-)

> I wonder the same about 4. I
> just keep telling myself when #4 comes all the others will be that bit
> older, that bit more self sufficient. Personally I think in some ways
> it gets easier. Obviously in other ways it gets harder.

I also wonder if it just seems harder in the moment because it's *new*.
When Eamon was a newborn/infant, it seemed really hard. Then when we had
Quinn, we realized -- no, one is cake; *two* is hard. ;-) Now that Quinn
is almost 5 mos., it doesn't seem as hard anymore.

> So far the challenges have
> been fun/do-able, obviously, or we wouldn't have done it so many times
> ;)

:-D

Thanks for your thoughts, Sophie. :-)

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Alphawave]

Em says:

> I feel fairly strongly that only two
> children sounds like too small of a family to me (personally) and also
> I do not want my kids to have only one adult sibling when grown up.
> Three sounds like a good size--not too big, not too small.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've thought about that too.

One thing I wonder about is how it sometimes seems like the world is
designed for the 4-member family. Most tables and booths at restaurants
seat 4; standard hotel rooms sleep 4; cars are more comfortable for 4;
etc. -- just seems like it could be easier to be 4 people rather than 5
when you're out as a family.

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[H Schinske]

Alpha wrote:

>One thing I wonder about is how it sometimes seems like the world is
>designed for the 4-member family. Most tables and booths at restaurants
>seat 4; standard hotel rooms sleep 4; cars are more comfortable for 4;
>etc. -- just seems like it could be easier to be 4 people rather than 5
>when you're out as a family.

That is definitely true. It's not a deal breaker, mind you, but it is true :-)

--Helen

[Ericka Kammerer]

Alphawave wrote:


> One thing I wonder about is how it sometimes seems like the world is
> designed for the 4-member family. Most tables and booths at restaurants
> seat 4; standard hotel rooms sleep 4; cars are more comfortable for 4;
> etc. -- just seems like it could be easier to be 4 people rather than 5
> when you're out as a family.


I do think that's true, but obviously not insurmountable.
Fortunately, while the kids are small, you can often fit in
a situation designed for four ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Sue]

Oh don't get me started on the perfect four in a family. Everything is for a
four member family. Any kind of contest is for four people. I once won
tickets to see Sesame Street live and recieved four tickets, um hello, I
have five in my family, what am I supposed to do, leave one child home?
Camping this summer, we had to pay extra for our third child. It drives me
mad especially when the average number of chidlren for a household is like
2.3 or something. Why don't they round up, ugh.

--
Sue
mom to three girls
Alphawave > wrote in message
...
> Em says:
>
> > I feel fairly strongly that only two
> > children sounds like too small of a family to me (personally) and also
> > I do not want my kids to have only one adult sibling when grown up.
> > Three sounds like a good size--not too big, not too small.
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean. I've thought about that too.
>
> One thing I wonder about is how it sometimes seems like the world is
> designed for the 4-member family. Most tables and booths at restaurants
> seat 4; standard hotel rooms sleep 4; cars are more comfortable for 4;
> etc. -- just seems like it could be easier to be 4 people rather than 5
> when you're out as a family.
>
> -- Alpha
> alphawave at earthlink dot net