Disagreement about third child

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:33:17 -0400, "Sue"
wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
My experience is that it just isn't as bad as most assume. I'm not trying
to talk you into a 3rd kid--that's obviously between you and your wife.

"lenny fackler" wrote in message
Seems like everyone I know who has 3 kids _does_ try to talk us into
it. I'm not buying it. I think it's a trick ;-)

I have three and I won't talk you into having a third.)

Some people have it easy and others have it a little harder. I'm in the
latter company and it definitely has not been easy (it was actually easier
when they were smaller). With their current ages as they are, they fight
ALL the time and hormones are raging. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.
Traveling is not easy either and I don't care how easy Barbara makes it
sound. Air-fair is expensive for a family of five and going anywhere is a
production, so we stick to beaches and camping ourselves, which is fun for
us anyway, so no one is missing out. My kids don't travel well, so that
could be a factor for us.

I dont mean to be arbumentative,and travel is not for everyone,and I
dont know how old your kids are.

HOwever, traveling can be very simple, especially as your kids get
older. Expensive is a different issue, although we travel very cheaply
as a family. WE book far in advance for example and get really goo
ddeals or we use latst minute vacation services and get really good
deals. But then I try not to pay full price for anything ever.

But in terms of the logistics, I can assure you, if I found it
difficult, we would not do it. We do it because we like to.

However, as I mentioned in other threads, I am big on personal
responsiblity at a young age, so I do not do everything. My children
each are responsible for their own possessions, hence each passenger
has a very small wheeled carryon rather than a couple large ones for
the family.

Your experiences may differ but it is not a "prduction" for us. We do
it all the time. If it were a production, or difficult or stressful we
woudlnt do it.

Circe wrote:

Yeah, I have to admit, I don't get the "two in diapers" is hard thing. I
found two in diapers considerably easier from a practical point of view than
one in diapers and one newly potty-trained toddler who needs a toilet *right
now* when he/she expresses the need to go.

And let me tell you, diapers are far easier for a toddler in Europe, given
the scarcity of public toilets and the striking lack of toilet *seats* on
the ones that do exist.

Wow. That's quite a generalisation for a huge area of land, or have you
really been to every country?

Mary Ann

Certainly, one of the trickier things about our last
two European excusions was finding acceptable toileting facilities for the
Diva (who, even at 5yo, doesn't hold it very well) at the drop of a hat.

Circe wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

Ideally, I'd pack all of our clothing for *everyone* in a single checked
piece of luggage. I couldn't do that this time, though, because the
youngest's diapers take up too much space. Next year, when he's potty
trained, I fully expect to check one, medium-sized wheeled suitcase for

all

of us.

For us, it depends on the availability of laundry services.


When I book places for us to stay in Europe, I usually won't rent a place
unless it comes with a washing machine. This last time, we considered taking
the clothes to a fluff-and-fold place because it was cold and things weren't
drying (dryers being virtually unheard of in private residences in Europe),
but wound up being able to manage doing it ourselves.

Do you mean private rental places or private homes? Which part of Europe
are you talking about?
There being a predominantly US readership on this NG, I'd like to
clarify what you mean from my (UK) point of view.

Mary Ann

dragonlady wrote:
In article 04d7e.7320$%c1.789@fed1read05, "Circe"
wrote:


Note that many people who *plan* to have only X number of kids wind up with
an extra quite by accident. Contraceptive failures *do* happen. In such a
situation (an existing, unplanned pregnancy), should the "No" still win?
--


Or, in our case, twins happen, too.

(I wanted 2 or 3, DH wanted 1 or 2, we agreed on 2 -- but got 3 anyway.)

Ha! I say to my DH that the longer he waits to decide about having
another the higher the risk of multiples...... :-)

Mary Ann

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
Some traveling is easy to me, some is not. It depends on the
specific type of trip, the method of travel, the ages and
temperments of those involved, and the mindset that one has
when embarking upon the trip.

You like camping with your kids -- must be easy for you.
It would be hell for me! Give me an easy trip to the city anytime
over the perils of the "great outdoors". Unless it's the beach.
But the woods -- I'd go into it with a negative attitude, thus ensuring
that it would turn out to be a negative experience.

We didn't camp with the kids when they were the ages of your children. I
agree that would have been hard and definitely not fun. These days, we have
a camper and go to "child friendly" campsites (e.g. Yogi Bear) and it has
been fun. They are older now so they just go about their business. We go
with other families so we are all together to help with meals and kids. When
my kids were your children's ages, if we were to travel at all, we stayed in
hotels. But, I understand, some people are just not into camping.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

"Mary Ann Tuli" wrote in message
...
dragonlady wrote:
In article 04d7e.7320$%c1.789@fed1read05, "Circe"
wrote:


Note that many people who *plan* to have only X number of kids wind up
with
an extra quite by accident. Contraceptive failures *do* happen. In such a
situation (an existing, unplanned pregnancy), should the "No" still win?


I'm coming late to this thread, but I wanted to respond to Dragonlady's (or
Circe's?) question, above.

I am with those who think that "No" trumps yes, in most situations, for the
reasons that Kathy Cole iterates, above. I got pregnant with my son when
my daughter was 10 months old. And my son is now nearly 9 months. DH and I
were trying to figure out why I am so run down lately, and we had a
horrified "What if I'm pregnant again" thought. (I'm not, thank god.) But
in the discussion, his position was that even though we don't want a third
(fourth, counting SD) child, if I were pregnant, we'd have it. Needless to
say, this is *not* my position. At all. More children would impact DH
and I as a couple, financially, but it would impact *me*, personally, in
every aspect of life - sleepless nights to career development. And I think
my "no" to those upheavals would trump DH's "yes".

But thank heaven it's not an issue on the table. Whew.

Donna

In article , Kathy Cole says...



As far as I can tell, the person who wants another child
and the person who doesn't have the same issues at stake: their
vision of what they want their future to be. I don't see the
inherent superiority of either position, and I think Banty is
exactly right that anyone who comes at the argument with the
attitude that their position is inherently superior is
insufficiently understanding and compassionate of the needs
of the partner.

I am uncomfortable with describing the situation as if the child-vetoing
party is by definition not understanding or compassionate. Understanding
and compassion are not incompatible with a carefully considered decision
against additional children.

I think you miss the point.

It's not that that party doesn't want children, it's that he or she would have
the veto to begin with.

Vetos may happen by parents in their relationship with children. It does not
happen between partners.

Banty

P. Tierney wrote:


You like camping with your kids -- must be easy for you.
It would be hell for me! Give me an easy trip to the city anytime
over the perils of the "great outdoors".

I'm with you there!

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
Banty wrote:

I think you miss the point.

It's not that that party doesn't want children, it's that he or she would have
the veto to begin with.

Vetos may happen by parents in their relationship with children. It does not
happen between partners.

I'm not missing your point, I'm disagreeing with it.

Individual desires and autonomy don't disappear because you're a couple;
you balance your individual desires with your goals as a couple, and
hopefully most of the time, you both come to agreements with which you
can live.

However, there are situations for any couple where one party should have
automatic veto power over the other's wishes. Medical treatment
decisions for ourselves aren't something the other party gets to
dictate, for example. Whether either of us is willing to deliberately
create another child is another.

Not carelessly or cruelly asserted veto power, nor capriciously decided
veto power, if the relationship is one that you value. But ultimately,
decisions about the uses to which my body is put are mine to make, not
my husband's, just as the uses to which his body is put are his.

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

P. Tierney wrote:


You like camping with your kids -- must be easy for you.
It would be hell for me! Give me an easy trip to the city anytime
over the perils of the "great outdoors".

I'm with you there!

Best wishes,
Ericka


Me, too. Camping is - sitting somewhere other than home, with everything taking
more effort - cooking, cleaning up after cooking, cold nights to sleep in,
hassles to get to shower and sink, etc. etc. What's relaxing about that?

The only interest for me in camping is as a part of backcountry backpacking.
Then there's a *reason* for camping out. Otherwise, it's just a cheap way to
sit somewhere other than on the back deck, with everything else being a hassle.

When we go spend a week by a lake in Wisconsin, we rent a cabin apartment.

Banty