Disagreement about third child

In article ,
dragonlady says...

In article 8iW6e.6908$%c1.477@fed1read05, "Circe"
wrote:

Maybe so, but if one person wants an additional child so badly that
they would cause, or accept, or simply allow the destruction of their
family, it would almost seem to me indicative of a mental illness or at
least some serious underlying issues that having more kids isn't going
to solve.

Would you say the same if the couple were childless and one wanted one or
more children while the other didn't? The desire to have more children than
one currently has isn't more or less valid because one either does or does
not have a particular number of them at present.

The main difference is that breaking up a marriage when there are NO
kids is between just two adults. Breaking up a marriage that already
has one or more kids because one of you wants MORE kids and one doesn't
has a negative effect on innocent children, so I'd be more inclined to
think that both have more of a moral obligation to find a way to resolve
this that does NOT end in divorce.


I agree it's different in that way.

But would you see a difference if it were a disagreement over a *second*, vs. a
third?

Like I said before, a breakup over this probably stems from overall serious
issues which would have driven this kind of disagreement. But I don't think
this idea that, since the socially-expected life-script of two kids are already
met, the desire for a third shouldn't be taken very very seriously, is a valid.
Or even if the disagreement is over having a second, the idea that once one is a
parent, that should be 'enough' to settle for necessarily.

As a single parent by chioce, I was for some time on a mail list for single
mothers by choice. One of the great frustrations shared by other SMC's is that
there is this strong idea out there that, even if people are very supportive of
a prospective single parent for *one* child, they oppose plans to add to the
family to have *two* children. Like it is somehow over the line or asking too
much of life. Even if the resources and time is there for that. As if we've
already taken some Big Social Allowance and we should not get 'greedy' about it.

In my case, for practical reasons (mostly having to do with my temprament) I
decided to stay with one. But the desire for more than one child is very real
and strong for many, and to dismiss that because someone is already a parent is
belittling.

Banty

"lenny fackler" wrote in message
ups.com...
The youngest is almost potty trained, we're just getting to the
point where we can travel again,

Goodness, why would you let a baby/toddler keep you from travelling
if you want to?

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and camping.

You know, we didn't really even start doing any serious traveling by air
until after the third child was born. We took the oldest to Houston once
when he was 9mo (we live in Southern California) and went to Tahoe with both
kids (the week of 9/11, as it turned out), but we didn't do any
international stuff until we had all three. So, from my perspective, I don't
see that flying with two is any less practical than flying with one. My kids
have done some serious long-hauls on planes (twice to Italy, once to Greece)
and, while there are some challenges, they handle it very well. In fact, we
got compliments on their behavior on our last international flight
(Rome-Philadelphia).
I know, I know, a lot of people aren't up for travelling with little
kids. People think we're nuts to do it. But I think that most people
would find it a lot of easier than they *imagine* it would be if
they'd just be optimistic and do it (which is pretty much how we
approach it).

I like the idea of taking them everywhere, but it hasn't been as
enjoyable in practice. I'm starting to formulate some big plans for
the next few years though.

Well, you definitely have to make some accommodations when you bring kids
that you wouldn't make if you were just travelling as a couple. For example,
one of the ways we've made travel to Europe with children easier is to try
to spend most of our time staying in a private house with a kitchen that
fairly central to the sights we want to see. That eliminates moving from
place-to-place every few nights. lets us make breakfast and sometimes dinner
at "home", and gives the kids a lot more room to roam and play than a hotel
would. I also have to put in a plug for the portable DVD player as a
lifesaver.

We also certainly don't try to do as much in terms of cultural/artistic
stuff as we would if we didn't have the children with us. But all in all,
we've found travelling with them to be relatively painless, perhaps
partially because they enjoy having both Mom and Dad around pretty much
24/7, something they don't get when we're at home.

The last couple of trips we've taken have been without the kids, which
we couldn't do when they were younger.

I have to admit, this is something neither my husband nor I have been able
to bring ourselves to do yet. I might be able, at this point, to stomach
being away from them for a few days at a stretch, but my husband wants them
with us because, given his work schedule, family vacations are among the few
times he really gets to spend a lot of unbroken time with the children.
We're kicking around the idea of a European trip in about 5 years, by which
time we think we'll probably both be ready to do a trip on our own. But
until then, we like having them with us and we'd both be miserable at least
some part of the time if we tried to travel without them.
--
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)

Circe wrote:
"lenny fackler" wrote in message
ups.com...
The youngest is almost potty trained, we're just getting to the
point where we can travel again,

Goodness, why would you let a baby/toddler keep you from
travelling
if you want to?

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and
camping.

You know, we didn't really even start doing any serious traveling by
air
until after the third child was born. We took the oldest to Houston
once
when he was 9mo (we live in Southern California) and went to Tahoe
with both
kids (the week of 9/11, as it turned out), but we didn't do any
international stuff until we had all three. So, from my perspective,
I don't
see that flying with two is any less practical than flying with one.
My kids
have done some serious long-hauls on planes (twice to Italy, once to
Greece)
and, while there are some challenges, they handle it very well. In
fact, we
got compliments on their behavior on our last international flight
(Rome-Philadelphia).

We were in Sri Lanka for three weeks in October, when ds was 21 mo. I
was also 2-3 months pregnant with #2. It went very well, but it was
exhausting, especially on the flights back. He was extremely
well-behaved, but didn't sleep, and wanted to explore the plane for 10
hours, so it nearly did us in. At Christmas, just two months later, we
flew back to Manitoba, only a 3-hour flight each way, and he was a
miserable handful. I'm not flying with him again until August, and I'm
hoping by then he'll be a little better able to sit still for a short
flight.

snip

The last couple of trips we've taken have been without the kids,
which
we couldn't do when they were younger.

I have to admit, this is something neither my husband nor I have been
able
to bring ourselves to do yet. I might be able, at this point, to
stomach
being away from them for a few days at a stretch, but my husband
wants them
with us because, given his work schedule, family vacations are among
the few
times he really gets to spend a lot of unbroken time with the
children.
We're kicking around the idea of a European trip in about 5 years, by
which
time we think we'll probably both be ready to do a trip on our own.
But
until then, we like having them with us and we'd both be miserable at
least
some part of the time if we tried to travel without them.

We are also going to Scotland later this summer, for one week, and we
are leaving ds with his grandparents and just taking the baby. Partly
this is a financial consideration - those international tickets don't
come cheap for children over 2 - and partly it's because we don't feel
anyone will enjoy the trip as much with him along, including him.

With our lifestyle, we will be travelling a lot throughout our
children's early years, and mostly with them. My flying alone with them
will be at times unavoidable. While I'm confident that this won't be a
problem, it is currently making me think that 2 kids is probably enough
for us (along with the greater general financial considerations, and my
desire to get back into the workforce sooner)!

Then again, I know a family with 3 kids that globetrots with apparent
ease all the time - the big thing there, though, is that the older two
are five years older than the youngest. I think that age gap makes it
easier to handle. I've seen families flying with a 4yo, 2yo, and baby -
they're not usually having much fun!!

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

lenny fackler wrote:

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and camping.

While that's certainly a valid choice, I don't think
flying with two is inherently impractical. We just flew with
three (10, 7, 20 months) and it was fine. And we went on
vacation in a city, spending our time doing mostly museums and
eating out and such. I really think this is a situation were
it's a matter of what you want to do rather than an inherent
limitation (well, except for the finances--it's certainly more
expensive to fly a family of five). 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. I only suggest that
three (or more) children may not be as limiting to others
as you seem to suggest. We chose three kids, but we didn't
feel a need to stop flying, going on vacations, going out
to eat, etc. There are certainly lots of life changing
elements, but for us, with kids who are 10, 7.5, and
nearing 2 years old, it's really the older kids that
dictate our lifestyle far more than the youngest. She
just gets schlepped around a lot ;-) It's the older
kids' school schedules and activities that affect what
we can do more.
As far as babysitting goes, we're blessed with
local family who are very helpful, but we also have
taken the lead to find other sitting options so that
we're not dependent on family. What has worked out
very well for us has been setting up a neighborhood
babysitting co-op. Free, experienced babysitters on
tap--who could ask for more?! ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Melania" wrote in message
oups.com...
We were in Sri Lanka for three weeks in October, when ds was 21 mo. I
was also 2-3 months pregnant with #2. It went very well, but it was
exhausting, especially on the flights back. He was extremely
well-behaved, but didn't sleep, and wanted to explore the plane for 10
hours, so it nearly did us in. At Christmas, just two months later, we
flew back to Manitoba, only a 3-hour flight each way, and he was a
miserable handful. I'm not flying with him again until August, and I'm
hoping by then he'll be a little better able to sit still for a short
flight.

I can certainly relate to that. The hardest flight by far for us was the
flight back from Athens when Vernon was just turned 2, for much the same
reason you describe. This year, when he was just turned 3, it was *much*
easier.

snip

I have to admit, this is something neither my husband nor I have been
able
to bring ourselves to do yet. I might be able, at this point, to
stomach
being away from them for a few days at a stretch, but my husband
wants them
with us because, given his work schedule, family vacations are among
the few
times he really gets to spend a lot of unbroken time with the
children.
We're kicking around the idea of a European trip in about 5 years, by
which
time we think we'll probably both be ready to do a trip on our own.
But
until then, we like having them with us and we'd both be miserable at
least
some part of the time if we tried to travel without them.

We are also going to Scotland later this summer, for one week, and we
are leaving ds with his grandparents and just taking the baby. Partly
this is a financial consideration - those international tickets don't
come cheap for children over 2

This is why we don't do our European travel in the summer. The tickets are
just *way* too expensive for us to contemplate buying five of them and then
*also* pay premium prices for lodging. We are lucky to have a two-week
spring break, so European travel is feasible during that time (at least to
southern parts) and I don't think we've ever paid much more than $700 per
person per ticket at that time of year.

- and partly it's because we don't feel
anyone will enjoy the trip as much with him along, including him.

In our case, we'd bag a trip over leaving one child behind. Which is not at
all to say it's wrong for you to go and leave your child with the
grandparents. It's just that our kids have *never* been away from both of us
for more than one overnight, and that's been either because I was in the
hospital (when I had the others and once when I was ill) or because they
have chosen to spend the night at a friend's house. That being the case, we
just wouldn't feel comfortable leaving any of them behind for any length of
time.

With our lifestyle, we will be travelling a lot throughout our
children's early years, and mostly with them. My flying alone with them
will be at times unavoidable. While I'm confident that this won't be a
problem, it is currently making me think that 2 kids is probably enough
for us (along with the greater general financial considerations, and my
desire to get back into the workforce sooner)!

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 (though we
typically bring along my mother and have brought my niece or nephew on the
last two trips, so we're even a bigger party than 5) and every plane ticket
you have to buy certainly adds to the expense.

Then again, I know a family with 3 kids that globetrots with apparent
ease all the time - the big thing there, though, is that the older two
are five years older than the youngest. I think that age gap makes it
easier to handle. I've seen families flying with a 4yo, 2yo, and baby -
they're not usually having much fun!!

Well, I don't think the flight part is in any way *meant* to be fun. It is a
necessary evil. It is merely to be gotten through so that you can get to
your destination. And that's just as true from my personal perspective
whether I'm travelling alone, only with other adults, or with children. I
just won't let the "un-fun" of the plane trip stand in the way of our going
to a destination we really want to visit.

So, if you saw me travelling with my 5yo, 3yo, and baby or my 6yo, 4yo, and
2yo, no, I wasn't having fun. But I didn't *expect* to be having fun *then*.
The fun part comes later!
--
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)

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

lenny fackler wrote:

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and camping.

While that's certainly a valid choice, I don't think
flying with two is inherently impractical.

Yep - while it can be a *factor* in a decision (mostly if it's a serious
financial factor in a family where travel is very important, like a need to
return to a country of origin periodically) to limit a family size, this strikes
me as one of those truisms I hear about stuff like that. Like the "you can't
have two in diapers at the same time". Why the heck not? OK - it's a LOT of
diapers with two that age, but the overall number of parenting diaper-months is
compressed, there still will be the same cumilative number of diapers to raise
the kids, so what? But I hear it so often.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
Yep - while it can be a *factor* in a decision (mostly if it's a serious
financial factor in a family where travel is very important, like a need
to
return to a country of origin periodically) to limit a family size, this
strikes
me as one of those truisms I hear about stuff like that. Like the "you
can't
have two in diapers at the same time". Why the heck not? OK - it's a LOT
of
diapers with two that age, but the overall number of parenting
diaper-months is
compressed, there still will be the same cumilative number of diapers to
raise
the kids, so what? But I hear it so often.

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. 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.
--
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)

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dragonlady says...
In article 8iW6e.6908$%c1.477@fed1read05, "Circe"
wrote:
Would you say the same if the couple were childless and one wanted one
or
more children while the other didn't? The desire to have more children
than
one currently has isn't more or less valid because one either does or
does
not have a particular number of them at present.

The main difference is that breaking up a marriage when there are NO
kids is between just two adults. Breaking up a marriage that already
has one or more kids because one of you wants MORE kids and one doesn't
has a negative effect on innocent children, so I'd be more inclined to
think that both have more of a moral obligation to find a way to resolve
this that does NOT end in divorce.

I agree it's different in that way.

But would you see a difference if it were a disagreement over a *second*,
vs. a
third?

Like I said before, a breakup over this probably stems from overall
serious
issues which would have driven this kind of disagreement. But I don't
think
this idea that, since the socially-expected life-script of two kids are
already
met, the desire for a third shouldn't be taken very very seriously, is a
valid.
Or even if the disagreement is over having a second, the idea that once
one is a
parent, that should be 'enough' to settle for necessarily.

As a single parent by chioce, I was for some time on a mail list for
single
mothers by choice. One of the great frustrations shared by other SMC's is
that
there is this strong idea out there that, even if people are very
supportive of
a prospective single parent for *one* child, they oppose plans to add to
the
family to have *two* children. Like it is somehow over the line or asking
too
much of life. Even if the resources and time is there for that. As if
we've
already taken some Big Social Allowance and we should not get 'greedy'
about it.

In my case, for practical reasons (mostly having to do with my temprament)
I
decided to stay with one. But the desire for more than one child is very
real
and strong for many, and to dismiss that because someone is already a
parent is
belittling.

Exactly what I was trying to say, Banty. Thanks for saying it more clearly
and concisely than I could.
--
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)

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer says...
lenny fackler wrote:

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and camping.

While that's certainly a valid choice, I don't think
flying with two is inherently impractical.

Yep - while it can be a *factor* in a decision (mostly if it's a serious
financial factor in a family where travel is very important, like a need to
return to a country of origin periodically) to limit a family size, this strikes
me as one of those truisms I hear about stuff like that. Like the "you can't
have two in diapers at the same time". Why the heck not? OK - it's a LOT of
diapers with two that age, but the overall number of parenting diaper-months is
compressed, there still will be the same cumilative number of diapers to raise
the kids, so what? But I hear it so often.

Yes I flew with 3, and did not stick to road trips and camping, even
with four. I once helped out a lady who had four children under four
(including twins). The thing my mom said to me was - you don't want
to have two in college at the same time.

grandma Rosalie

Circe wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
Yep - while it can be a *factor* in a decision (mostly if it's a
serious
financial factor in a family where travel is very important, like a
need
to
return to a country of origin periodically) to limit a family size,
this
strikes
me as one of those truisms I hear about stuff like that. Like the
"you
can't
have two in diapers at the same time". Why the heck not? OK - it's
a LOT
of
diapers with two that age, but the overall number of parenting
diaper-months is
compressed, there still will be the same cumilative number of
diapers to
raise
the kids, so what? But I hear it so often.

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. 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.

Oh, I hear you!

Ds is right smack in the middle of toileting, and is doing very well
with it (it's mostly his initiative), but I have a baby due in 6 weeks
and sometimes I find myself thinking, "maybe I'll just let him slide
back into diapers - it'll be easier than continuing with the toileting
*and* caring for a newborn."

My aunt had 3 in diapers at once (aged 3, 1.5, and newborn). Yes, it
was a lot of diapers, but it was okay. IIRC, the older 2 ended up potty
training at about the same time - the middle child just wanted so badly
to do everything the older one did. So, she had one kid who potty
trained a bit late, and another who was fully potty trained at age 2.

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)