Disagreement about third child

In article ,
Banty wrote:

Yep. But my main point I'm trying to make is that this notion that one or the
other position should be trump does not help, and may resonate with a
fundamental problem with the marriage.

Sure. These are honest and thorough discussions that should be happening
before entering into a long-term relationship or marriage, not to
mention during the relationship. You're doomed if you can't communicate.

And this is a good point - if there is to be no more children, ever, or
goodbye - does this mean a change in BC method, if so by whom, and is one
or the other willing to live with the backup plan of termination?
Implementing that finality can be problematic.

A decision for no more children should (at a minimum) result in
researching sterilization procedures, by the person who has come to the
'no'. And every couple should come to agreement on how they will handle
an unexpected pregnancy.

People tend to want to give the status quo the default, expecting
justification from the partner that wants a change. But life brings
changes - overall the health of the marriage is better met by the
willingness to meet change.

Deliberately adding a child is a lifelong commitment -- we're not
talking about deciding on a job change that requires temporary
relocation, for example, or some decision short of the permanence of
adding another family member. The status quo *should* be the default if
there's a disagreement on something that momentous.

P. Tierney wrote:

"Circe" wrote in message
news:3%a7e.7306$%c1.6066@fed1read05...

Well, I'll admit that the fact that we do want to do more travel is one
consideration that has put a damper on having a fourth child. It's pretty
difficult to find accommodations in Europe for a family of five


So what type of accomodations do you end up with, and
how do you find them? Trolling for info for the future, I am.

IIRC, Barbara and her family have often gone with
renting villas. We've been moving in that direction as well,
as it seems to make travelling with a family much easier and
is more financially reasonable than upgrading hotel accommodations.
We travel more within the US, but there are lots of vacation rental
properties that are quite handy and reasonable. We met up with
friends in Chicago recently and stayed in a hotel and realized
belatedly that we'd have been much better off with a vacation
rental--there were several that were quite nice, in the right
location, and would have suited our needs very nicely for less
money. Once you get over that magic sized family of four (or
at least when the third is looking for a bed rather than a
crib), the hotel situation becomes much more challenging.
I usually find things on the web. There are several sites
for vacation rentals.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:JVh7e.13231$Bb3.7624@attbi_s22...
"Circe" wrote in message
news:3%a7e.7306$%c1.6066@fed1read05...
Well, I'll admit that the fact that we do want to do more travel is one
consideration that has put a damper on having a fourth child. It's
pretty
difficult to find accommodations in Europe for a family of five

So what type of accomodations do you end up with, and
how do you find them? Trolling for info for the future, I am.

We almost always rent a house/townhouse or apartment. We have stayed in
hotels for a couple of nights when necessary, but that's tough because it's
unusual to find a hotel room anywhere in Europe that has beds for more than
three people. I have always done all of my research and made all of my
bookings online for everything (hotels and private residences) and have yet
to be ripped off or scammed or seriously disappointed in the accommodations.

On our first trip to Italy, we stayed in hotels in Milan on the first and
last nights (because our flight was out of Milan), but stayed the rest of
the in a lovely apartment in this villa in Lastra a Signa, just outside of
Florence: http://www.knowital.com/properties/f...altoviti2.html.

When we went to Greece, we stayed two nights in a Holiday Inn in Athens (it
was a bit run-down, but the breakfast was free and good), one night in a
hotel in Delphi (small, very cheap, GREAT view), and one night in a hotel
outside of Athens near the airport (large, comfortable rooms but *very* poor
noise control between the rooms). The rest of the time, we stayed in the
upstairs portion of this house in Tolo (which is near Nafplio in the
Peloponnese): http://www.palamidi.20m.com/villa_marrietta.html. This was the
most incredible place we have *ever* stayed and the photos on this site
don't come close to doing it justice.

In Mexico, we stayed in the Villa Lupita in Zihuatanejo:
http://www.zihuatanejo-villaselmorro.com/villas/. In addition to being very
conveniently located, reasonably comfortable and reasonably priced, this one
came with daily maid service, which you need in Zihua because you track sand
into the house constantly. In Mexico City, we stayed in the Holiday Inn on
the Zocalo. We had a bit of problem there in that we didn't have enough beds
for all the kids, but fortunately, they didn't mind sleeping on blankets on
the floor!

And on our last trip to Italy, we stayed for a week in Villa Fontanella in
Termini (on the Sorrentine peninsula). I can't make a direct link to the
page, but if you look through the houses that are in Sorrento for 7 or more
people, you can find it if you want to look. It was a nice place except that
the heating was a little insufficient. We then stayed five nights in an
apartment in Rome which was *lovely*: http://tinyurl.com/3j45w. Again, the
photos don't do it justice.

I'm starting to look for places to stay in Cordoba and Barcelona, Spain for
next spring, now. I haven't found much yet, but I usually find that's
usually the case when I'm just getting started.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

Kathy Cole wrote:

Deliberately adding a child is a lifelong commitment -- we're not
talking about deciding on a job change that requires temporary
relocation, for example, or some decision short of the permanence of
adding another family member. The status quo *should* be the default if
there's a disagreement on something that momentous.

But deciding *not* to have another child is *also*
a lifetime commitment. It's not like there's some inherent
virtue in the status quo. That's like saying if we're moving
cross country and the car breaks down in Missouri, what's the
problem with setting up housekeeping there? After all, it's
on the way towards where you wanted to go.
For every one of the naysayer's reasons for not having
another child, the proponent has a reason *for* having another
child. For every thing the naysayer has to give up if they
do have another child, the proponent has something to give up
if they *don't* have another child. There's no inherent
superiority on either side from the parents' perspective.
The only thing that breaks the tie is that the *child*
doesn't deserve to be brought into the world without two
willing parents. That's not much consolation to the parent
who wants another child, though, and it doesn't remove any
of the sting of having a partner who is unwilling to
support something that is so important to his or her
spouse. (Obviously, it's not always this important to
either parent, but I'm starting from the assumption that
this isn't such a huge problem in cases where the feelings
either way are more mild.)
There are lots of life issues that are just as
significant to the family. Would you say that the wife
who wants to return to work because she can't seem to
adjust to being a SAHM has no right to go back to work
if her husband doesn't want her back in the work force?
Sure, it's not an irrevocable decision, but it certainly
affects husband and kids and there's certainly a possibility
that once attempted, the husband might not like the situation
while the wife continues to want to work outside the home.
What about couples who disagree about where to
live? Those choices have serious effects on both partners,
children, and extended family. Again, it's not completely
irrevocable, but with jobs and financial issues, it's often
a very difficult decision to reverse. Does the person who wants
to stay put trump the person who wants to go somewhere else?

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. As far as I can tell, the situation is
usually approached in a very unequal way, with the naysayer
holding all the power and the proponent going begging. I
think that's fundamentally a problem. The naysayer should
be every bit as concerned about the damage to the proponent's
hopes and dreams for the future as the proponent should be
about the naysayer's hopes and dreams for the future. Given
what I see and hear from others, that rarely seems to be the
case.
I do agree that ultimately, it is concern for both
existing and future children that ends up having to play a
very large role in the decision making. That is often what
tips the scales. But that doesn't in any way remove the
damage caused by one party not being sufficiently motivated
to safeguard the hopes and dreams of his or her partner.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dragonlady says...

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are issues
between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that breaking up a
child's home (thus hurting the child or children you already have)
because of this particular disagreement is a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a dog
doesn't do.
So who wins?

That's the sticking point. Everyone on earth would agree that harming
the child's home is a bad thing, but that doesn't address the core
disagreement.

Luckily in our house, we avoided it. Having trouble conceiving #2,
spouse started talking about adoption ("I am going to have a second child,
by whatever means necessary, period" -- or something like that ;-)) and I
kept putting it off, since I was leaning against not doing it and sticking
with
one child if we could not conceive. After two years of dealing with
conception issues, #2 was born. We never had to have the what would
have been contentious discussion about the details of adoption, but if we
had, I might've been posting something similar to what the OP posted --
not the exact same issue, but parallel.

As for a possible #3, we've already agreed to let nature decide
that one. ;-)


P.
Tierney

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Kathy Cole wrote:

Deliberately adding a child is a lifelong commitment -- we're not
talking about deciding on a job change that requires temporary
relocation, for example, or some decision short of the permanence of
adding another family member. The status quo *should* be the default if
there's a disagreement on something that momentous.

But deciding *not* to have another child is *also*
a lifetime commitment. It's not like there's some inherent
virtue in the status quo.

You can't un-have the child.

It's too important a decision to take without both partners being in
agreement, for themselves, their existing children, and the child
they're considering creating.

That's like saying if we're moving cross country and the car breaks down
in Missouri, what's the problem with setting up housekeeping there?
After all, it's on the way towards where you wanted to go.

Are you approaching this as if the decision against another child is
sprung without any discussion or thought? That's the Missouri example,
but not of necessity the family size question at all.

For every one of the naysayer's reasons for not having
another child, the proponent has a reason *for* having another
child. For every thing the naysayer has to give up if they
do have another child, the proponent has something to give up
if they *don't* have another child. There's no inherent
superiority on either side from the parents' perspective.
The only thing that breaks the tie is that the *child*
doesn't deserve to be brought into the world without two
willing parents. That's not much consolation to the parent
who wants another child, though, and it doesn't remove any
of the sting of having a partner who is unwilling to
support something that is so important to his or her
spouse.

Any significant incompatibility of viewpoint has the potential for
disappointment, feelings of betrayal, lack of trust, even the break-up
of the relationship.

There are lots of life issues that are just as
significant to the family.

I have creating another child in its own category, inherently more
significant than just about any other family decision.

Would you say that the wife who wants to return to work because she
can't seem to adjust to being a SAHM has no right to go back to work
if her husband doesn't want her back in the work force? Sure, it's not
an irrevocable decision, but it certainly affects husband and kids and
there's certainly a possibility that once attempted, the husband might
not like the situation while the wife continues to want to work outside
the home.

Not irrevocable is the key for me -- the parents have new information;
their assumptions about how successfully Mom staying at home would go
have proven faulty, and they should re-evaluate the situation. Try mom
back in the work force for a while and re-evaluate again.

(I assume the underlying goal is to minimize the amount of time the kids
are with caregivers other than mom and dad; maybe he should try being
the SAH parent for a while.)

What about couples who disagree about where to
live? Those choices have serious effects on both partners,
children, and extended family. Again, it's not completely
irrevocable, but with jobs and financial issues, it's often
a very difficult decision to reverse. Does the person who wants
to stay put trump the person who wants to go somewhere else?

They negotiate. If they can't come to agreement, one party can't force
the other party to go if the other party wants to stay.

(Family courts will tend to support the stay-er, which would be another
item that should be input to the nuclear option of leaving when your
partner is staying.)

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.

As far as I can tell, the situation is usually approached in a very
unequal way, with the naysayer holding all the power and the proponent
going begging. I think that's fundamentally a problem.

If that's how the couple is typically communicating, I agree; that
doesn't sound like a healthy balance.

The naysayer should be every bit as concerned about the damage to the
proponent's hopes and dreams for the future as the proponent should be
about the naysayer's hopes and dreams for the future.

I agree with this.

Given what I see and hear from others, that rarely seems to be the
case.

That's unfortunate.

I do agree that ultimately, it is concern for both
existing and future children that ends up having to play a
very large role in the decision making. That is often what
tips the scales. But that doesn't in any way remove the
damage caused by one party not being sufficiently motivated
to safeguard the hopes and dreams of his or her partner.

I am uncomfortable with this set of implications as well. I don't accept
that the vetoing additional children partner is the one at whose feet
the blame solely rests for insufficient motivation to safeguard the
hopes and dreams of their partner. Safeguarding my partner's hopes and
dreams cannot mean that my hopes and dreams must always be sacrificed,
especially on something as irrevocable as having another child, and
that's what I took from your paragraph.

Unfortunately, for some couples, there will be bright lines that
represent immovable positions that conflict with the other partner's
bright lines, where no amount of negotiation will result in a change of
mind -- hopefully, these are identified and understood well before
marriage, but that's not always the case. If the relationship breaks up,
there's no reason to assume there isn't profound grieving on both sides.

"Sue" wrote in message
...
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.

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.


P. Tierney

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
" wrote:

IOW, would someone who would leave a
spouse because the spouse declined to have more kids also leave the
spouse if the spouse was UNABLE to have more kids?

Well I DID know I guy (I'll decline to call him a friend) who left his
wife WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL following sugery to remove her uterus
due to cancer, because he wanted children and she couldn't have them
now....

I knew one who left his wife in the delivery room. It was for
their child (3rd or 4th), and he said "I don't think I can handle this".
Walked out and never came back.

It's probably safe to say that they didn't do a lot of honest
communicating in the year prior to the birth of their final child.


P. Tierney

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
massive snip
. The naysayer should
be every bit as concerned about the damage to the proponent's
hopes and dreams for the future as the proponent should be
about the naysayer's hopes and dreams for the future. snip

This was actually similar to a question (it wasn't about having
children, but I asked what his reaction would be if I wanted to do
something like work instead of SAH) that I asked my dh before we were
married. That was because I had previous boyfriends who set themselves
up as the final authority, and I didn't want to be in a relationship
where I was not at least asked for my input. Several of them were
quite miffed that I didn't argue the point, but just opted out of the
relationship. I think they probably had a point, but I didn't see any
hope of changing their basic attitude regardless of what they would
have agreed to in order to get me to marry them. IOW I didn't trust
them not to lie about what they would do even if it appeared that they
had been convinced.

One of the big breakthroughs of understanding I had when we were first
married was realizing that dh and I were not siblings in competition
for the love of a parent, but were partners.

(The actual problem that precipitated this epiphany was - funnily
enough - the laundering at home of his white uniforms, which had to be
starched very stiff. I could do it, but when I hung them to dry, the
dust from the unpaved road next to the washing lines would get on
them. Since it was a red clay road it would turn them pink, which was
obviously unsatisfactory. Dh came to understand while it was a bit
more expensive to have stuff done by the laundry, it was worth it
considering the time and effort and expense (we didn't have a washer
and I had to go to the laundromat) required to do them at home.)

IMHO, that is probably the underlying cause of a marriage breakup if
one should happen that is ostensibly because of a disagreement over
the number of children to have. And I'm not sure that, if there is no
partnership between the parents that two parents are really better
than one. The question here becomes, which one should they end up
with.



grandma Rosalie

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:59:42 -0600, Jeanne Clelland
wrote:

In article cCe7e.7340$%c1.3184@fed1read05,
"Circe" wrote:

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
Never mind the every lovin carryons. Thats what bothers me.


And just for the opposite point of view: after numerous checked-baggage
disasters, including one where our suitcase was eaten by a
baggage-handling machine, and MOST of our stuff - though not quite all
of it - showed up filthy, in a garbage bag, I have sworn NEVER to check
a bag again. If it doesn't fit into our allotted carry-ons, it stays
home.


Jeanne

My problem is that I have been on a plane with high disturbance and no
matter what they say, most of those carryones becaem projectiles. I
learned the hard way (literally)