The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: Luckie on January 24, 2016, 12:34:18 PM
-
Tell me what I need to consider? We are debating if we should have a third, I need to consider all financial implications/effects that I may have looked over.
-
having another child should be because you want another....everything else will fall into place
.....I am a mother of 4, retired at 50, high school drop out, never on welfare......
-
Posting to follow. We've been having this debate lately too. Although in our case it is definitely dependent on the job/financial situation improving.
-
We plan to pay full cost for each of our child's college, so for us it would delay FIRE by at least a year, probably two. Also, adding in one more day care cost would probably add another 6 months to a year till FIRE for us. Other things (from a monetary perspective, obviously this is not just a monetary decision): cost of plane tickets--we hope to take the kids on a few international adventures, and extracurriculars.
Needless to say, I'm sticking with two!
-
If you are a regular here, you can find a way to afford a third child. It shouldn't be a financial decision. Nothing you can buy, including FIRE, will bring more joy than a well raised child.
-
Nothing to do with money but I grew up as one of three. Someone was always left out. We are all very close with each other today, but we still get along a lot better one on one because of the dynamic of someone being left out. I always said I wouldn't have 3....either 1, 2, or 4.
-
having another child should be because you want another....everything else will fall into place
.....I am a mother of 4, retired at 50, high school drop out, never on welfare......
I love it when threads are pretty much resolved within the first handful of posts. What she said. If you want it, you can make it work. Or as ditheca said...
If you are a regular here, you can find a way to afford a third child. It shouldn't be a financial decision. Nothing you can buy, including FIRE, will bring more joy than a well raised child.
We've got 2 and are aiming for 4, whether through adoption or biologically.
-
Financial stuff only, it depends on your situation, but possibly the costs of maternity or paternity leave, child care, clothes, food, school expenses, activity costs, need for bigger accommodation/larger vehicle, additional travel costs for vacations, greater expense for gifts and special occasions, sacrifices to one career (or both) due to the efforts needed to wrangle an additional child. Every time you have a baby you roll the dice on if you'll be fortunate enough to have a child who will grow up to be self-sufficient. If special needs or an accident mean you (in addition to social supports and government programs) must provide indefinitely for that child, that certainly increases the costs.
-
There was a recent study that the more children are in a family, the less well any of them do. YMMV. (I know, I don't really buy it either. Thing is, I REALLY want a third child and my husband doesn't. So I remind myself a lot of all the reasons not to have one. Like spoonfeeding! And potty training! Pacifiers!)
-
I am for it, my hubs is not but will if I really wanted to. I am hoping someone can scare me away from the idea of having a third so I don't have to think about it. Or add more light to having a third.
The idea of breastfeeding, the first year, family dynamics such as Rockstache pointed out, not sleeping until i am in my 40's becuase I have not been blessed with children who sleep through the night, possible disabilities scare me. I'm wondering if someone can shed light, financially that I have not thought of that can possibly deter me from this or would allow me to hash this through. It's hard to say since no one knows my financial situation but just some considerations others have made to go for a third or not or even those from 3 children households would be great. TIA
I love and adore my two boys with all of my heart, we have lots to offer. I think we will be incredibly lucky to have a third boy or girl but not at the expense of my 2 other.
-
To some extent a third child would have to be at the expense of the two you already have. Even if the finances are OK (and I don't agree with other posters that if you want the child the finances will follow: that's the kind of magical thinking that has failed to work for large poor families through the ages), you and your husband only have 24 hours in each day and only so much time and energy in each of those days to give to your kids. And as rockstache says, 2 adults 2 kids means no-one has to feel left out.
You would be adding more than your replacement number of humans to an overpopulated planet, although that doesn't seem to have ever stopped anyone.
-
I come from a family of 3 and had 3 boys. I don't think anyone suffers. Kids don't need constant attention or they end up spoiled brats. I have know large families of 6-8 kids that produced wonderful well adjusted adults. We had a 3 bedroom house so 2 always had to share a room. You never quite fit in a motel room-usually had to pay for a roll away bed to be brought in. You might not fit in a restaurant booth and if you go somewhere alone and the kids are too close together you might not have enough hands. WE didn't have this problem as there were 7 years between first and 3rd. The other things I mention are minor.
-
One additional thought that hasn't previously been mentioned: everyone is assuming your third child will be healthy and neurotypical. Sadly that is far from guaranteed. If your third child has medical or developmental challenges, the associated costs will far exceed your estimates. More importantly, the personal costs involved are astronomical. Imagine having to take care of another human being for the rest of your life.
This is where I should note that I am child-free by choice. I have many reasons why I'm foregoing procreation, but this is one of the most critical. I briefly considered fostering or adopting but have always been firmly opposed to having a biological child because it's such a gamble.
-
One additional thought that hasn't previously been mentioned: everyone is assuming your third child will be healthy and neurotypical. Sadly that is far from guaranteed. If your third child has medical or developmental challenges, the associated costs will far exceed your estimates. More importantly, the personal costs involved are astronomical. Imagine having to take care of another human being for the rest of your life.
This is where I should note that I am child-free by choice. I have many reasons why I'm foregoing procreation, but this is one of the most critical. I briefly considered fostering or adopting but have always been firmly opposed to having a biological child because it's such a gamble.
I don't quite get what you're saying. How is it a gamble? The odds are always heavily in your favor unless you're talking about people who are carrying recessive genes for bad genetic conditions. Even in your forties, for a healthy woman, the odds are still heavily in her favor.
-
If you are of the age where there might be some risk you can also have amniocentesis to see if there are any birth defects. As previously noted by another poster having a child is not usually a big gamble.
-
One additional thought that hasn't previously been mentioned: everyone is assuming your third child will be healthy and neurotypical. Sadly that is far from guaranteed. If your third child has medical or developmental challenges, the associated costs will far exceed your estimates. More importantly, the personal costs involved are astronomical. Imagine having to take care of another human being for the rest of your life.
This is where I should note that I am child-free by choice. I have many reasons why I'm foregoing procreation, but this is one of the most critical. I briefly considered fostering or adopting but have always been firmly opposed to having a biological child because it's such a gamble.
I don't quite get what you're saying. How is it a gamble? The odds are always heavily in your favor unless you're talking about people who are carrying recessive genes for bad genetic conditions. Even in your forties, for a healthy woman, the odds are still heavily in her favor.
I'm not speaking so much to the pure probability of the child having a serious health issue, but rather to the severity of the consequences if s/he does happen to be among the unlucky few. This is also colored by the fact that I have worked with developmentally and behaviorally challenged children. There are serious conditions (ie. autism) that cannot be tested for in utero.
-
As the youngest of nine(!) and the father of six, I'd say it really comes down to what you want, and *why* you want it, not what you can afford. If a third child is sufficiently important to you, you'll find a way to pay for him/her. I agree with Cassie--more kids doesn't mean that you can't give them what they need. DW and I strongly believe that kids need to develop independence and self-sufficiency. Of course, we both came from large families, so we're both biased in that direction :)
It may sound callous, but there *are* significant economies of scale with more kids--everything from clothes to bedding to bedrooms to car space. Plus, if you're in the US, you get another $4k exemption and $1k refundable child tax credit. But again, finances should be a secondary concern.
-
To all the folks who are suggesting a 3rd child increases the risk of disorders and disabilities...keep in mind that any child can be hit by a car, fall out of a tree, suffer a concussion, etc, and end up as a quadriplegic or severely cognitively disabled (or both!) for the rest of his or her life. This can happen at any time throughout childhood. It isn't a reason not to have more children any more than it's a reason not to have any children.
-
I saw your bit about children not being sleepers and had to post because we are basically in your exact situation. We always wanted three or four and the plan was to do our best to start having them two years apart starting when I was late 20s early 30s. I have two and unless a drastic change happens with my husband's job within the next year we have recently decided that we are done.
My heart aches for a third and we were seriously talking about it even though I'm the breadwinner, carry the insurance and because I work for a small company I have no maternity leave at all (just 3 weeks vacation) But - on top of this my two children are truly awful sleepers. They both consistently woke 7-10 times a night until they were about 8 months old and neither sleep through the night regularly now at 4 and 2 years old. I can actually count on my fingers and toes how many times I've slept a 6 hour stretch in the last four years.
That was my decision maker - I realized I can't be in my mid 30s running on 3-4 hours sleep for a year while still working a very full time job and parenting the other two children (not to mention the mustachian cleaning and doing all the home cooking from scratch). I will break and it would not be good for my family.
So- I guess all that to say- think about what would be best for you. For instance, I know my kids would love a sibling and lord knows my mom and MIL are begging for another grandchild but I have come to realize that I can't be the wife and mother that my family deserve, and I certainly wouldn't be my best self for many years if we added another child to our family.
Best of luck to you and hugs!
-
To all the folks who are suggesting a 3rd child increases the risk of disorders and disabilities...keep in mind that any child can be hit by a car, fall out of a tree, suffer a concussion, etc, and end up as a quadriplegic or severely cognitively disabled (or both!) for the rest of his or her life. This can happen at any time throughout childhood. It isn't a reason not to have more children any more than it's a reason not to have any children.
I can't find a comment that suggests more children increases this risk. My comment was that every time you have a child (whether first, third, tenth, etc.) there is a possibility the child will have indefinite dependency (or, as someone else pointed out, additional medical costs.) That possibility can be a reason to never have children. It can also be a reason to not add another to the family, if that outcome means your family's time, energy, and finances will be too stretched, given that you have other children to care for, already. Is the probability high that this will happen? No, but it is a possibility, and one that it's useful to think of ahead of time (or at least one will feel that way, should it happen.)
-
To all the folks who are suggesting a 3rd child increases the risk of disorders and disabilities...keep in mind that any child can be hit by a car, fall out of a tree, suffer a concussion, etc, and end up as a quadriplegic or severely cognitively disabled (or both!) for the rest of his or her life. This can happen at any time throughout childhood. It isn't a reason not to have more children any more than it's a reason not to have any children.
I can't find a comment that suggests more children increases this risk.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you wrote?
My comment was that every time you have a child (whether first, third, tenth, etc.) there is a possibility the child will have indefinite dependency (or, as someone else pointed out, additional medical costs.)
If you have multiple children, with each child representing a possibility of "indefinite dependency," each additional child represents an additional risk...right?
-
If you are of the age where there might be some risk you can also have amniocentesis to see if there are any birth defects. As previously noted by another poster having a child is not usually a big gamble.
Fyi...There is "some risk" with having a baby, at any age of mother and father. And not all health concerns will be found with an amnio. And, like a pp said, risk of accident or injury is present every day of your life.
I think time and money are the costs of another child... No matter how many you already have. Economies of scale kick in more with a family of five. Dh and I are both one of three, and we have loved it. I think it mixes up the dynamic and adds a lot of fun to our families. But, if both parents are not on board, best to wait. It will be life changing, for you all, to add a third.
(Dh and I have 4 ... Would love one more. But I know that's not the norm around here.)
-
I am for it, my hubs is not but will if I really wanted to. I am hoping someone can scare me away from the idea of having a third so I don't have to think about it. Or add more light to having a third.
The idea of breastfeeding, the first year, family dynamics such as Rockstache pointed out, not sleeping until i am in my 40's becuase I have not been blessed with children who sleep through the night, possible disabilities scare me. I'm wondering if someone can shed light, financially that I have not thought of that can possibly deter me from this or would allow me to hash this through. It's hard to say since no one knows my financial situation but just some considerations others have made to go for a third or not or even those from 3 children households would be great. TIA
I love and adore my two boys with all of my heart, we have lots to offer. I think we will be incredibly lucky to have a third boy or girl but not at the expense of my 2 other.
If you're looking for reasons not to, I'd consider the possible strain on your marriage, since your husband doesn't want another child. Will he resent you and forever use it against you ("we had another kid because you wanted it, so I get to make this big decision on my own because you owe me" or "we can't afford X because you wanted a bigger family than I did")? Will you resent him if he's not very supportive during your pregnancy or involved in the third child's rearing? If fate gives you multiples or a child who is disabled will he blame you for the extra effort and expense now required? Having a(n additional) child is a big decision, even if both partners embrace the idea wholeheartedly. If you're not both on the same page, it's better to not (or, at least, wait, and see if either of you changes your mind.)
-
Three in car seats is a grand ol pain in the ass. We managed it in our Toyota corolla only by buying expensive diono radians. Even so we only lasted a year before buying a minivan.
Vacation packages, "family" tickets to events, things of that sort are usually planned for four people.
If I do something for one child I need to be prepared to do it for all three. Piano lessons for $100/month-do able. Three sets of lessons is a lot more painful.
You didn't ask for all this talk about the risks of a child, but since its been brought up...I was the first of three children. I was a national merit scholar and totally supporting by nineteen. The middle child is on the autism spectrum with various learning disabilities and still lives with our parents at age thirty. The youngest child was born with cerebral palsy required 24 care and never walked or talked.
I'm not sure what the point of that anecdote was, except I am terrified that one of my children will be disabled and saw potential futures firsthand. Yet we still chose to take the leap and had three kids ourselves.
-
Financial stuff only, it depends on your situation, but possibly the costs of maternity or paternity leave, child care, clothes, food, school expenses, activity costs, need for bigger accommodation/larger vehicle, additional travel costs for vacations, greater expense for gifts and special occasions, sacrifices to one career (or both) due to the efforts needed to wrangle an additional child...
Financial concerns definitely played a role in our choice to stop at two. We weren't so much concerned about costs when they were young ... but we were concerned about teenaged years: Any child of mine was always going to require braces, then car insurance and teen activities, and college. We never set out to have children and just do the minimum to keep them alive -- we wanted to provide an environment and experiences that would help them grow into successful, happy adults. No, that's not all about money, but money sure it is tied up in the equation!
he idea of breastfeeding, the first year, family dynamics such as Rockstache pointed out, not sleeping until i am in my 40's becuase I have not been blessed with children who sleep through the night, possible disabilities scare me. I'm wondering if someone can shed light, financially that I have not thought of that can possibly deter me from this or would allow me to hash this through. It's hard to say since no one knows my financial situation but just some considerations others have made to go for a third or not or even those from 3 children households would be great. TIA
Those first couple years are difficult: Breastfeeding was easy for me, but sleeping was a killer. Still, if I had wanted a third child, the difficulties of those first few years wouldn't have stopped me.
I'm not speaking so much to the pure probability of the child having a serious health issue, but rather to the severity of the consequences if s/he does happen to be among the unlucky few. This is also colored by the fact that I have worked with developmentally and behaviorally challenged children. There are serious conditions (ie. autism) that cannot be tested for in utero.
You're making a major life choice based upon a remote possibility. I suspect your job is coloring your judgement on this topic; when you work with "the unlucky few", it's very easy to feel (note I didn't say think) that this is a common thing.
-
To all the folks who are suggesting a 3rd child increases the risk of disorders and disabilities...keep in mind that any child can be hit by a car, fall out of a tree, suffer a concussion, etc, and end up as a quadriplegic or severely cognitively disabled (or both!) for the rest of his or her life. This can happen at any time throughout childhood. It isn't a reason not to have more children any more than it's a reason not to have any children.
I can't find a comment that suggests more children increases this risk.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you wrote?
My comment was that every time you have a child (whether first, third, tenth, etc.) there is a possibility the child will have indefinite dependency (or, as someone else pointed out, additional medical costs.)
If you have multiple children, with each child representing a possibility of "indefinite dependency," each additional child represents an additional risk...right?
Wording is tricky, but I'll try...
Indefinite dependency is one possible outcome for every child. Absent other factors I'm not suggesting that each subsequent child's possibility of this outcome increases simply because there are prior children (third child is not automatically more likely than the first or second to be indefinitely dependent.)
What I'm getting from your above paragraph is that with each additional child a family increases the family's chances of having experienced this outcome with a child at least once. Yes, that's true.
I do think it's a consideration if the OP's family can meet the demands of that outcome, should it happen with a subsequent child. Either because they already have responsibility for other children (who have their own existing needs and risk of accident) and will be spread that much thinner, or because they don't wish to increase the probability of their family caring for even one indefinitely dependent child (in which case your point applies. More kids, more probability of the family needing to support at least one indefinite dependent.)
-
Luckie, this thread was started asking about two, but there are stories shared about having a third child, as well.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mini-money-mustaches/considering-a-second-child-what-was-it-like-going-from-1-to-2/
There's only ten pages of posts in the Mini Money Mustaches category, you could skim the thread titles as there are probably a few you'd find interesting (like about Mustachianism and big families, for instance.)
-
We have one boy and will be trying for anoher baby later this year. We hope it is a girl so that we can have one of each, but we are going into it saying it will be the last one either way. 3 kids just seems like a handful with travel and college and all of the little stuff... two has always seemed perfect to me. Like others have said, you are introducing one more small chance of risk with one more child, but no more risky than your 2nd. Also, things could get really interesting with twins or triplets! If your husband wants to be done, I wouldnt push it.... but I do understand where you are coming from, my wife wants at least one girl too.
-
Some anecdotes about 3rd children:
1. My husband is the third child in his family. Despite having loving and supportive parents, he's always grown up feeling like the odd one out. His older brother and sister are great people and would do anything for their little brother, but he's always felt inferior to them. It doesn't help that they were star students and he wasn't.
2. A neighbor who has three kids also had this "odd one out" issue with her third, and in her case the older two really didn't like their little sister. Her son, when he was going through puberty and mood swings, actually threatened to kill his little sister. I do think some of this is the fault of the parents (favoring the youngest, etc.) but it's obviously harder for three kids to all get along with each other than for two. Just imagine a group of three friends and how easy it would be leave someone out, intentionally or not.
3. A close friend of mine had a 3rd baby by accident. I know the first year was extremely difficult. She obviously wouldn't regret the decision to keep him, but she also couldn't help thinking about how much easier life would be if she didn't have a baby to take care of (her older two are already in school). She'll be in her late 50s by the time he's in college.
4. One of my husband's co-workers who has three kids confessed to him that he didn't really think through some of the financial implications. Like going from one hotel room to two. Like not being able to fit three car seats in the sedan. This was right after we had our second, he said, "In case you're planning to have another one, think very carefully..."
On other hand, I have another friend who regrets not having a fourth :) So ultimately it just comes down to how much you want more babies.
-
Life is very complex. I don't think we can say with any certainty at all whether or not having a child will help or hinder your life in any way. Undoubtedly, it will do both of these things thousands of different ways in the time you spend with him/her. The odds of a defective birth are irrelevant just as the odds of having a model come out and you're an instant millionaire are. To me it sounds like some are trying to guess the future by looking at all the extremely improbable cases - which is one of the tenants of mustachian philosophy to begin with. Don't do that!
My wife and I are seriously considering adopting a special needs child for our third (we have 2 young boys) and while I'm sure it will be extremely hard at times, and is a for life commitment... there will also be good times and joy brought in.
If there feels like someone is missing at your table when you sit down for dinner, there probably is.
-
I am the youngest of three and I don't recall any odd-one-out issues other than that sometimes people were doing things I was too young for -I'm pretty sure that's universal to childhood. We have one and hope to have four eventually.
-
To me, while it's worth thinking through the practical implications of having a third child, it's not a decision one makes based strictly on those. If we were to be entirely practical, I don't think any of us would have children. It's a mostly emotional decision, as it should be.
Most of my childhood, I was the middle of three children. I liked being in the middle, as I had a playmate on either side of me. We rarely played together all three of us, but I don't ever remember any feelings of being the odd-person-out. Mostly one of us was off doing something else (sometimes with a parent, or friend, or just reading) and two of us were playing together. (When I was 11, my parents adopted a fourth child, but that didn't really change the sibling dynamics).
My wife and I are seriously considering adopting a special needs child for our third (we have 2 young boys) and while I'm sure it will be extremely hard at times, and is a for life commitment... there will also be good times and joy brought in.
If there feels like someone is missing at your table when you sit down for dinner, there probably is.
We have two bio boys and when they were 3 and 5, adopted a special needs girl (18 months old). Her needs are not severe (significant cleft palate resulting in several surgeries, ongoing orthodontia work, and years of speech therapy, learning disabilities) and have been easy to deal with. Her therapies are just another "activity" that we go to, much like swimming lessons or karate, and health insurance covers everything (after our deductible), including the orthodontia work because it's related to her cleft palate.
I worried about her feeling like the odd person out, being the only girl, the only adopted, of a different race, but she and her brother (middle child) are much closer than the two boys are (primarily due to personality difference between the boys). So you can never predict how these things will go.
I love having three kids and would have adopted a fourth had DH been on board. That said, I overestimated my own ability to continually take on more and didn't make any adjustments (continued working full-time in stressful job, DH continued traveling all the time, lots of pets, we didn't get household help until a few years later) and looking back, I can see that I was overwhelmed and stressed out the first year or two after we adopted her. BUT, those are more related to my own personality issues (perfectionism, not admitting I need help) and could have relatively easily been mitigated had I been able to admit to my own limitations. The lesson here is to be smarter than I was about adapting your life to having three kids, rather than just thinking you cram more in, but that doesn't change the joy of having three kids.
-
Tell me what I need to consider? We are debating if we should have a third, I need to consider all financial implications/effects that I may have looked over.
The planet doesn't need more humans. If you have 2 what's driving the need to have another?
-
I grew up in a big family. It was awesome.
Pros to larger families:
More siblings tend to mean more companions. Companions aren't just for play, they are for swapping dating advice, support when something doesn't go your way, and sharing any family burdens. This may be particularly key as parents age. I know quite a few kids who were onlies or in pairs and its much harder to care for parents and other adult responsibilities when you have fewer people to fall back on. Most people don't have friends who are so so close that they will step in and help you care for an ailing parent, but sibs will (if you have a healthy relationship that is).
The "clan" feel - some people just love big families. They love the chaos, the huge family get togethers, yes even the weird disagreements and feuds.
Cons:
Fewer resources per child. College funds will be smaller for everyone. Kids will get less alone time with the parents.
Family infighting - more personalities means more opportunities for conflict. Then again, it also means more opportunities for love.
Some studies show that people who grow up with siblings may be more inclined to be naturally altruistic - growing up with more people to consider can definitely foster that. Then again, other studies show smaller families tend to have kids who are more successful on traditional metrics like educational attainment, probably because they benefit from more resources per child. Either way, the research seems to be a wash - pick what matters to you, chances are you'll find studies that show both bigger families and smaller families achieve these things.
Sadly, we can't talk you out of wanting a baby. You two will have to decide for yourselves. Personally I loved being a kid in a large, loving group of siblings and wouldn't trade that for a bigger college fund or some of the other pros commonly associated with fewer children. I have one daughter and plan on having at least 2 more if everything works out!
-
Tell me what I need to consider? We are debating if we should have a third, I need to consider all financial implications/effects that I may have looked over.
The planet doesn't need more humans. If you have 2 what's driving the need to have another?
I used to believe this argument, but after looking into it a bit more, my opinion changed.
The overpopulation argument makes sense if populations and resources are relatively evenly dispersed but they aren't. There are areas that have very low birthrates, and governments are actually begging their populace to have children to ensure there are sufficient workers in future generations to keep the country afloat. Then there are countries seeing population booms, usually in emerging economies like India. If you live in an industrialized nation, the birth rate usually hovers around 2, and in some countries it's even lower than replacement level. This can make up for the larger more populated areas. The counterargument is that the world isn't overpopulated persay, it's just that there are overpopulated pockets for the resources available in a given area, and we aren't willing to make the necessary infrastructure and cultural changes necessary to ensure that everyone is cared for in a sustainable fashion. The idea that if wealthy people just forgo kids everything will be better is nonsense - all that happens is that we re-route even MORE resources to those lucky few kids we do have. Just take a look at the number of 1 and 2 kid families living in huge houses to see this in action.
Now, some could say that we should import individuals from overpopulated areas into areas where the birthrate is lower to try to "even out" the number of people without encouraging people to have more kids. But obviously that is a tough sell, for both the migrant group and the established citizenry of a specific area. There are also ethical implications involved with personal autonomy -is it fair to tell individuals it's their responsibility to not have kids just because there are segments of the population who are having more? Who knows.
-
Only you and your husband can make this decision!
We have two boys and stopped. They are 10 and 7 and I am SO glad we didn't have a third. We are busy and maxed with our two -- and we don't even over-commit. The each have a sport (one at a time) and a music (through school) extra-curricular and it's all we can handle. We like down time....we like time at home as a family....dinners together. Granted, you can really limit what your kids do and have down-time....but we want to give our kids the best that we can. They are social beings and love sports and their instruments. I knew that having more kids would not allow us to be the best parents that we can be. I did not want to be "tired, stressed-out mama" all the time.
With that said, I have friends with 3+ kids and they manage it all extremely well and would tell you they can't imagine their life any other way. So, I think only you know if that is what you want.
-
I don't quite get what you're saying. How is it a gamble? The odds are always heavily in your favor unless you're talking about people who are carrying recessive genes for bad genetic conditions. Even in your forties, for a healthy woman, the odds are still heavily in her favor.
It's still a gamble. Always. I carry no recessive genes, I wasn't even 35 (which is kind of the line they draw for increasing risk of genetic anomalies). I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs (though that wouldn't have mattered). Heck, even after the baby was conceived and already HAD the horrible anomalies my screenings were still showing extremely low risk. It was without a doubt "I never thought this could happen to us." You shouldn't have children assuming it could never happen to you.
Heck, even if you have a 100% healthy child one day, you never know what is going to happen that will change that and make them fully dependent on you for the rest of their life.
As for the OP- having children never makes financial sense unless this is the 1800s and you need someone to help you work the farm. That's a very odd way of looking at the decision. I'd just keep in mind that you might try for 3 and end up with 4. I know quite a few people with surprise twins (and one with surprise triplets.)
-
I wanted three but I'm happy that we stopped at two. I still feel twinges of thinking there should be three but life is pretty great with two older kids. The world is set up nicely for families of four. If kids have activities we can have a parent at each one. We fit in smaller cars, travel is cheaper, babysitters (aka grandparents) aren't overwhelmed. I also like that I will still be fairly young when the kids graduate high school instead of pushing back the timeline a few more years.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I like peace and quiet over a full and crazy household. I think I would be overwhelmed with more.
-
Mom of 5 here - I'd be interested in knowing the ages, and number of years between each child. We've always been of "the more, the merrier" mindset, and quit at 5 only because my age (approaching 40, beginning to be concerned about the increasing risks for birth defects), and simple logistics (minivan held 7, didn't want to need 2 vehicles to visit family, etc.).
We've found that a 2-3 year gap in ages was perfect for us. The older was mature enough to be fairly independent when new baby joined the family, and was ready to be my "helper". No envy, no reverting to babyisms to get attention, they liked being the big sister/brother. They also played well together as they aged. Kids 1 thru 4 fit this scenario, but surprise DS5 is 6.5 years younger than DS4. It is a much bigger gap, and he really doesn't have an agemate like the others do. Also due to the large total age span, he was exposed to many things at an earlier age than the others (scary movies, things like that). In fact, the older ones really were less exposed to things than even DD3 and DS4, since we tried to keep things as age appropriate for the entire family as we could for as long as we could. The older ones getting to school age changes everything.
I have found that the school years are much crazy busier than the baby toddler years. There are so many different activities and sports they'd like to try, all seemingly at the same time. Eventually, even if you try to double/triple up on activities (t-ball for all), the leagues begin to separate based on age and or gender. Then the kids decide to assert their different personalities and choose differently than their siblings. We've done t-ball, baseball, softball, soccer, XC, track, swimming, tennis, quidditch. The kids have joined orchestra, band, jazz band, contemporary church choir, pit, musical, drama club. They play violin, viola, cello, bass, electric bass, trumpet, tuba, piano, and sing soprano and alto. We've done 6 years of gifted math (at a university 25 miles away, 2 times a week in MS and HS), robotics, rocketclub, church youth conventions, radio academic competitions, Lego club, chess club...
Now we are down to 2 at home, approaching 1. Two out of college, one in, one going next year, one just beginning MS and loving the freedom. It will be very different next year with only one at home. We are so used to constantly consulting with one another "So how many places do we need to be tonight?" Divide and conquer is our usual MO.
-
The kids definitely influence one another. The older kids gained maturity helping out with younger ones, the younger kids learned things from watching the olders. The different personalities interacted, so they learned to deal with others and keep harmony (both family and musical - the kids are nuts for music). Sometimes one's interest in something (XC, for example) led to getting others involved - recruiting DD3 when the team needed girls, DS4 tagging along to captain's practices for years before he could join. Some times they deliberately chose to be different (DS4 started in band even though all the others joined orchestra). Of course, then DS2 added band. DS4, not to be outdone, added orchestra in HS (more difficult direction), and is determined to get the double music honors one else has yet.
Each kid would be so different if they had never had the influence of all of the others. Quiet ones, drama ones, academic ones, mechanical ones, social ones.
-
I am childfree, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I am the oldest, and my mom was told she couldn't have more kids. Then she turned 30 and apparently her hormones aligned, and I wound up with sisters who are 6 and 8 years younger than me. The middle has crippling panic anxiety, which made for a VERY difficult childhood until she was properly diagnosed and treated.
I honestly feel like I was more or less on my own from the age of about 7. I had to grow up very fast and considered myself more of a third parent than a sibling to my sisters. I resented the the bejeezus out of them until they were teenagers. We're close now, but my childhood ended very early as a direct result of my siblings.
-
This is an intensely personal decision. I agonized over the third for about two years. My husband wasn't opposed to three but was happy with two. In that sense, I was the one struggling with the decision. Maybe it's because I am the third, but I just always envisioned a family of five. We had two shitty ass sleepers, so that was really holding me back. Plus I didn't love pregnancy. Breastfeeding was okay mechanically but stressful to me emotionally. I also worried about health problems and the possibly of trying for one and getting two. This thought terrified me.
In many respects, I would be a saner, less stressed person right now if we had stopped at two. But we didn't.
Our third was born when my older two were 4 and 6. Now the youngest is 22 months old, and I have to admit - life kicks my ass everyday. I think I was overwhelmed with all three kids during ages of 0-3, but I have certainly used more lively vocabulary to describe the young babyhood of my third boy. Phrases like, "I'm suffocating." "I can't breathe." etc. etc. come out of my mouth more often than I would like to admit. He still isn't sleeping through the night. The last 6 months have been harder than the first 6 months of his life, in large part because I am not emotionally suited to the toddler years. To be honest, I hate the toddler years.
I know that one day he will turn a corner and be more independent. It will happen. He will turn three, which is when it starts to get easier. But holy shit, life is hard right now. I still don't regret it, though. Lots of things in life are hard, but that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile.
For me, it boiled down to the empty chair. How many chairs do you imagine filled around your dining room or kitchen table? For me, I knew if we didn't at least try for a third, there would always be an empty chair. My good friend had four and still thought one more chair should be filled. It's not logical. It's emotional. Now that I have all my chairs filled, I really get it. My family is complete and I feel so grateful, even as I am struggling to get through the days with my sanity intact, that I was fortunate enough to be able to have the number of children I deep down wanted.
I am giving away the baby things with abandon. I jumped for joy when my husband had a vasectomy. I am happy every month when I get my period. I am completely and utterly done having babies. I couldn't have said that if I hadn't had the third. Of course, plenty of parents do just fine with the empty chair and eventually come to peace with whatever decision they make. Or if they try and it doesn't happen, it's painful but their lives are still happy.
As far as practical matters relating to a third:
You can still have a sedan if you want. Our primary car is a Ford Fusion and we have no problem.
Most restaurant tables are built for four, so be prepared to wait longer. But who wants to go out with three kids anyway?
Hotels are more expensive.
Juggling the schedule of three kids is harder.
They do entertain each other, and unlike others on here, I like the buffer kid. If one is fighting with another, he can go play with the third kid.
I personally haven't struggled with the whole zone defense thing (http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/zone-defense-from-two-children-to-three/?_r=0). Haven't noticed a difference.
-
Go for it!!
Selfish reason: 3rd is the 'charm'. It'll be more fun and enjoyable, you've had some practice now ;)
Selfless reason: Give a new person the gift of life with good parents in a great time and place in history.
No downside.
-
We have 2 kids and absolutely no plans for a third (in fact, I got my tubes tied during my c-section - woohoo!). For us, it was a combination of many factors that made us certain we would not want to have a third:
1) Overpopulation of the world. I am a firm believer in not going above the "replacement rate".
2) Every family we know that has 3 kids has one who is an asshole.
3) Financially we are just more comfortable only having to support 2. We like our 3 bedroom townhouse and small car.
4) Increased risk of health issues. We are blessed with 2 healthy kids (so far at least, knock on wood) so why push it?
5) I love babies but I am really looking forward to getting into the "big kid" stuff with my 1 & 4 YO.
I am thrilled every single time I send a bag of baby clothes or toys out the door to donate to another family. It feels great to be so confident in our decision.
-
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the risk of miscarriage. I had two between our first and second. Chances are at least 20% (and that's likely a low estimate). Are you ready to have to try for that third one more than once and the possible emotional repercussions of what it's like to lose a pregnancy? I hate to be a downer but it's a real possibility, even if you haven't had that experience in the past.
We always wanted two, possibly three if we got two of the same gender. My first pregnancy was smooth sailing (except for the awful morning sickness) then two miscarriages. I was pretty shocked that we had so much trouble getting a second baby to term since we had no problems the first time. I had decided on the third try for #2 that if that pregnancy also ended in miscarriage that our daughter would be an only child. Fortunately we were lucky to have our son join us and I got my tubes tied during my c-section.
If my first miscarriage would have been a successful pregnancy instead, our children would have been 1.5 years apart instead of 2.5 so the miscarriages delayed #2's arrival on the scene by a whole year. Part of that is because I needed a few months after each one to psych myself up to try again. Miscarriages are physically and emotionally draining, even if you aren't a super emotional person (which I do not consider myself to be).
-
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the risk of miscarriage. I had two between our first and second. Chances are at least 20% (and that's likely a low estimate). Are you ready to have to try for that third one more than once and the possible emotional repercussions of what it's like to lose a pregnancy? I hate to be a downer but it's a real possibility, even if you haven't had that experience in the past.
This is true. I had my first miscarriage between my second and my third. It was very, very difficult, but for me, it made me even more certain that I wanted a third. I don't know what I would have done if I miscarried a second time there. I'm sure I would have been devastated and very likely would have given up my desire for a third. Once we tried and "failed" the first time, I did panic a bit since we had opened the door and it had been shut in our faces so quickly.
In general, the risks of trying to have a child, delivering a child, and parenting them to adulthood and beyond are high. At any point in the journey you can and likely will experience emotional distress and pain. But the rewards are potentially high as well.
-
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is the risk of miscarriage. I had two between our first and second. Chances are at least 20% (and that's likely a low estimate). Are you ready to have to try for that third one more than once and the possible emotional repercussions of what it's like to lose a pregnancy? I hate to be a downer but it's a real possibility, even if you haven't had that experience in the past.
This is true. I had my first miscarriage between my second and my third. It was very, very difficult, but for me, it made me even more certain that I wanted a third. I don't know what I would have done if I miscarried a second time there. I'm sure I would have been devastated and very likely would have given up my desire for a third. Once we tried and "failed" the first time, I did panic a bit since we had opened the door and it had been shut in our faces so quickly.
In general, the risks of trying to have a child, delivering a child, and parenting them to adulthood and beyond are high. At any point in the journey you can and likely will experience emotional distress and pain. But the rewards are potentially high as well.
+1 - I've experienced consecutive miscarriages and one successful pregnancy/birth. You have to be ready and willing to jump in and accept the consequences (like you did with baby 1 and 2). The worst would be to try, lose the baby, and then find out your spouse is relieved and wants to call it quits when you still want to keep trying. That could be catastrophic for your emotional health and your relationship. If you do this, you both have to want it and be willing to go the distance.
-
If my first miscarriage would have been a successful pregnancy instead, our children would have been 1.5 years apart instead of 2.5 so the miscarriages delayed #2's arrival on the scene by a whole year. Part of that is because I needed a few months after each one to psych myself up to try again. Miscarriages are physically and emotionally draining, even if you aren't a super emotional person (which I do not consider myself to be).
I'm still trying for #1, but this is something that has really struck me hard about my stillbirth. I'm older now, and I still don't have kids. The doctor told me to wait 6 months between delivery and even trying again. And it took us 5 months to conceive him. And he was 7 months when I lost him. It just feels like so much wasted time.
I've honestly been able to emotionally deal with the loss, though at first I wasn't sure how I'd ever be able to live life again, but the time is something that I just can't deal with. Maybe not being able to have the third would be easier than not being able to have the first, I don't know. But not having him was insanely difficult.
-
If my first miscarriage would have been a successful pregnancy instead, our children would have been 1.5 years apart instead of 2.5 so the miscarriages delayed #2's arrival on the scene by a whole year. Part of that is because I needed a few months after each one to psych myself up to try again. Miscarriages are physically and emotionally draining, even if you aren't a super emotional person (which I do not consider myself to be).
I'm still trying for #1, but this is something that has really struck me hard about my stillbirth. I'm older now, and I still don't have kids. The doctor told me to wait 6 months between delivery and even trying again. And it took us 5 months to conceive him. And he was 7 months when I lost him. It just feels like so much wasted time.
I've honestly been able to emotionally deal with the loss, though at first I wasn't sure how I'd ever be able to live life again, but the time is something that I just can't deal with. Maybe not being able to have the third would be easier than not being able to have the first, I don't know. But not having him was insanely difficult.
I am so sorry for your loss. I had an early miscarriage in between my two kids, and I found it to be devastating. I cannot even imagine the pain of a stillbirth.
-
If my first miscarriage would have been a successful pregnancy instead, our children would have been 1.5 years apart instead of 2.5 so the miscarriages delayed #2's arrival on the scene by a whole year. Part of that is because I needed a few months after each one to psych myself up to try again. Miscarriages are physically and emotionally draining, even if you aren't a super emotional person (which I do not consider myself to be).
I'm still trying for #1, but this is something that has really struck me hard about my stillbirth. I'm older now, and I still don't have kids. The doctor told me to wait 6 months between delivery and even trying again. And it took us 5 months to conceive him. And he was 7 months when I lost him. It just feels like so much wasted time.
I've honestly been able to emotionally deal with the loss, though at first I wasn't sure how I'd ever be able to live life again, but the time is something that I just can't deal with. Maybe not being able to have the third would be easier than not being able to have the first, I don't know. But not having him was insanely difficult.
I am so sorry for your loss. I had an early miscarriage in between my two kids, and I found it to be devastating. I cannot even imagine the pain of a stillbirth.
Yes, I am also extremely sorry for all that you have had to go through. Since no one likes to talk about miscarriage, I spent a lot of time reading online forums and such after my miscarriage. I found a lot of people saying, "A loss of a fetus is a loss no matter when it occurs, whether it be six weeks or 30 weeks." This is certainly true, but the magnitude of grief that you have had to deal with is especially profound and I would say worse. I guess grief in general cannot be compared, but I do think miscarriage and stillbirth before you have another child is particularly cruel and painful.
-
I found a lot of people saying, "A loss of a fetus is a loss no matter when it occurs, whether it be six weeks or 30 weeks." This is certainly true, but the magnitude of grief that you have had to deal with is especially profound and I would say worse.
I think miscarriage would have a lot associated with it that I didn't have to go through. Depending on how early the miscarriage is, you may never be able to have testing done. So you may always wonder what went wrong; and could it have been "your fault".
I'm also grateful I got to hold my son, and get to "know" him, or at least pretend I could since he would kick for some things specifically. He already had a name. We have his ashes. In some ways I think a miscarriage would have been easier, rationally, I knew it was a possibility, whereas this I never considered could be, but in other ways I don't. A loss is a loss.
And because so many people have miscarriages, people minimize it as something you are supposed to get over. (Miscarriages are supposed to be a secret- to the point that many won't even tell people they are pregnant "just in case". That makes it even harder to grieve one.) Nearly everyone loses a parent too- but we let people grieve that appropriately. You don't expect people just to get over it because it happens to nearly everyone.
To tie this back into this particular thread- I think all of this would be really hard to deal with if you already had 2 kids and were waffling on the third. Because when parents go through grief of this magnitude, the kids do too. Like I said, I don't have kids, but I have nieces and nephews. The oldest of whom know the baby who was going to be their cousin died. They know what a pregnancy is, and what is supposed to result from it.
-
Tell me what I need to consider? We are debating if we should have a third, I need to consider all financial implications/effects that I may have looked over.
The planet doesn't need more humans. If you have 2 what's driving the need to have another?
I used to believe this argument, but after looking into it a bit more, my opinion changed.
The overpopulation argument makes sense if populations and resources are relatively evenly dispersed but they aren't. There are areas that have very low birthrates, and governments are actually begging their populace to have children to ensure there are sufficient workers in future generations to keep the country afloat. Then there are countries seeing population booms, usually in emerging economies like India. If you live in an industrialized nation, the birth rate usually hovers around 2, and in some countries it's even lower than replacement level. This can make up for the larger more populated areas. The counterargument is that the world isn't overpopulated persay, it's just that there are overpopulated pockets for the resources available in a given area, and we aren't willing to make the necessary infrastructure and cultural changes necessary to ensure that everyone is cared for in a sustainable fashion. The idea that if wealthy people just forgo kids everything will be better is nonsense - all that happens is that we re-route even MORE resources to those lucky few kids we do have. Just take a look at the number of 1 and 2 kid families living in huge houses to see this in action.
Now, some could say that we should import individuals from overpopulated areas into areas where the birthrate is lower to try to "even out" the number of people without encouraging people to have more kids. But obviously that is a tough sell, for both the migrant group and the established citizenry of a specific area. There are also ethical implications involved with personal autonomy -is it fair to tell individuals it's their responsibility to not have kids just because there are segments of the population who are having more? Who knows.
Good points plus the people in areas or countries that have a lot of children are often ill equipped to take care of them and provide a proper upbringing and education. This often aggravates their already existing societal problems.
-
Agreed that overpopulation is not really a reason. Educated populations have trouble reproducing themselves.
Send $100 to an organization that works for birth control or the education of girls in Africa or something like that, and I say you can procreate guilt-free :-).
-
Agreed that overpopulation is not really a reason. Educated populations have trouble reproducing themselves.
Send $100 to an organization that works for birth control or the education of girls in Africa or something like that, and I say you can procreate guilt-free :-).
Does that ":-)" make these statements a joke? Because the implications of that "joke" are profoundly unfunny
-
iowajes I am sorry for your loss. It is hard to be in a world surrounded by people who do not understand what you are going through. In so many ways the loss of an unborn child is the same as losing a living one, and studies have shown that dealing with infertility can be as difficult emotionally as fighting cancer.
We tried for 5 years and did multiple IVFs in multiple countries, lost a child in the process, spent a significant sum and finally made peace with the idea of not having our own. Two years from that low we had a total of 3 ... I know it doesn't always end that way, but I was convinced it would never, ever, ever happen for us.
Anyways, all of this is deeply personal and we all have our own perspectives, however I do really believe it is about choices. I grew up as one of 3 and we did lots of thing, they just tended to be free. And there are plenty of organizations and activities that don't cost a cent. I think too many parents spend too much time running around trying to 'plan' developmental activities etc. that are not better than the many cheap or no-cost options.
I only had two aunts and two uncles as well, and I was always a bit jealous of the bigger families in my friendship group who had so many extended family members. In some ways, as the Western world becomes smaller and more me-focused I think we lose something.
I also have serious doubts about population rates significantly decreasing as many in the West decide to reduce family sizes. I have lived and worked in many parts of the world that are working hard to fill those empty spots. And they will.
-
Agreed that overpopulation is not really a reason. Educated populations have trouble reproducing themselves.
Send $100 to an organization that works for birth control or the education of girls in Africa or something like that, and I say you can procreate guilt-free :-).
Does that ":-)" make these statements a joke? Because the implications of that "joke" are profoundly unfunny
No, it's not a joke. I think adding to your family when you want to can be lovely and a happy idea. I see how I came across as flippant, which is not my intention.
Reasonable people can disagree, but I do think offhand that rather than limiting the size of YOUR family in a population that is NOT reproducing itself, you would do more good by helping people limit THEIR families in places that are having trouble keeping their children alive and healthy. Send money for building toilets in schools so girls can still go when they are menstruating; donate cloth menstrual pads for the same purpose; do some research and figure out where some dollars could do the most good. Whatever.
-
Agreed that overpopulation is not really a reason. Educated populations have trouble reproducing themselves.
Send $100 to an organization that works for birth control or the education of girls in Africa or something like that, and I say you can procreate guilt-free :-).
Does that ":-)" make these statements a joke? Because the implications of that "joke" are profoundly unfunny
No, it's not a joke. I think adding to your family when you want to can be lovely and a happy idea. I see how I came across as flippant, which is not my intention.
Reasonable people can disagree, but I do think offhand that rather than limiting the size of YOUR family in a population that is NOT reproducing itself, you would do more good by helping people limit THEIR families in places that are having trouble keeping their children alive and healthy. Send money for building toilets in schools so girls can still go when they are menstruating; donate cloth menstrual pads for the same purpose; do some research and figure out where some dollars could do the most good. Whatever.
Actually what is comes across as is saying that rich white people should have as many children as they like while poor black people in Africa shouldn't and it's fine because the rich white people are educated and don't have enough children and the poor black people aren't educated and have too many. Which I trust was not your intention, even flippantly.
-
Well this got a bit off topic.
We had 2. I wanted 3. Well kind of- I wanted a third but I also wanted to sleep. We would definitely have had a 3rd if our first 2 had slept through the night before age 2.
I knew that to get through the first year of a 3rd baby, I would need to hire help (no family nearby). I know that even though there is an economy of scale with kids, they are also insanely expensive if you plan to put them in extracurricular activities, take them on vacations, or help them with college. We *could* afford it fine, but it didn't quite seem worth the trade-off.
Will I always regret a tiny bit not having a 3rd? Yes, but if we had a 3rd I have no doubt I would always regret a tiny bit not being able to help the kids more, go on more vacations, etc. People say you'll never regret the ones you have, just the ones you didn't. That is a load of horse poo- it goes both ways.
I am one of 3 by the way. It was fine. 2 kids will be fine too. Its all a crapshoot in terms of health of your kids- but more kids increases the odds of something going wrong (my first kid has autism- its not cheap to manage, and its one of the reasons we decided not to pursue adopting a 3rd kid). You may never be totally at peace with the decision (and your husband may never be totally at peace if you guys do decide to have a 3rd). Thats ok- over time, whatever you choose will become the new normal.
-
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
- GuitarStv's thoughts on having more children than you have hands.
-
I think everyone has pretty much covered it. We have 2 kids and have decided not to have a 3rd, for most of the reasons everyone else has given (expensive, done with sleep and time deprivation, having a third doesn't seem like it would add significant happiness even if those things were not an issue). My only addition is that I would definitely wait longer if you're unsure about your husband's desire to do this. If you pressure him, or force him, or persuade him against his true will, you're endangering your marriage.
-
We have three - nearly 5, nearly 3, and ~1/2. They get along really well. Older kids "play with" and are considerate of their sibling even though he can't do much yet. Well, mainly the 3 year old, on account of her natural interests. At least at this point we really have spent very little - pre-existing supplies and the wisdom to know what isn't needed and the experience to find the very cheapest diapers. Lack of sleep is really the only issue, but that should get better with age.
I was the oldest of 3. Huge age gap between myself and my siblings: 7 & 9 years apart. I wasn't great with them when we were young: in-home babysitter/3rd parent. It was a good thing the youngest came along because it gave the middle one someone to play with. Now that we're old, we get along great and it's going to be a blessing having additional hands to help with our parents, cousins to be playmates with, etc.
-
Personally I'm on the fence about a third but I don't find the overpopulation argument to be all that convincing. One kid more or less is not going to make or break the planet. I realize this falls apart when/if everyone uses this reasoning, but most people don't use this reasoning. In industrialized nations with access to birth control most families seem content with 0, 1, or 2. A smaller portion go for 3 and an even smaller portion for larger families than that.
As for the "poor people in third world countries should have fewer babies" discussion, I think the missing piece of the discussion above is that probably a lot of those people would LIKE to have fewer babies if they had the option, so I don't see a downside to helping them have that option (i.e. get birth control) if they want to exercise it.
-
We're on the fence about a third. I have this nagging feeling that our family is not complete. Not sure what to do about it. I try to live with no regrets...........
Going from 0 to 1 was more difficult than we could have imagined (yes we were that naive)
Going from 1 to 2 was hard, but much much easier than 0 to 1.
I imagine that some parts of going from 2 to 3 will be easier (economies of scale) but some aspects will be much harder (what if all 3 kids have an "event" at 10am on Saturday morning, at three different places? No longer able to divide & conquer)
As far as overpopulation, etc... my view is that if you are an engaged/active parent, with the means (both monetarily and emotionally and LOVE to give) to be able to handle 3, do it. We have a couple friend with 6 kids... they are amazing parents and their kids are amazing as well. If we come close to 50% of what they've accomplished in raising their kids, we will have done something great in this world. On the other hand, I think there should be more birth control method education in this country. Teaching abstinence is not going to cut it.
Good luck with your decision!
-
I tend to strongly disagree with the idea of having more than two. At that point, adopt if you want to take care of another one!!! Overpopulation bothers me. I grew up in Alabama though, where people seem to have tons of kids out of rural tradition (I suppose, I really don't know why they feel the urge to pop out so many).
I have never been privy to a logical reason for wanting more than two. It's always an emotional "We wanted another one" or "We were hoping for a girl/boy since we already have ___ of the opposite sex".
Well then ADOPT, people. Adopt.
But to each their own. =)
-
^ Meh; one could easily make the same argument about the lack of a logical reason for wanting more than one. Or zero. The entire process of wanting children is emotional beyond the biological parts of it.
-
Odds are (for me, having done it twice already without much difficulty) that getting pregnant and having a baby will be a lot easier, faster, and cheaper than adopting. Obviously that is not the case for everyone, but it's true for a good majority of wannabe parents. So, there's that too.
That said, I have thought about adopting from foster care when my kids are older, instead of or in addition to going for a third bio kid. But I do feel like the odds are that it won't be too difficult to have a third bio kid, while adopting from foster care could be a real crapshoot, and that's something I need to take into account when making that decision--and obviously, if something about my situation changed regarding how likely or easy it was to have a third bio kid, the variables would change yet again. There's no one solution for everyone.
-
^ Meh; one could easily make the same argument about the lack of a logical reason for wanting more than one. Or zero. The entire process of wanting children is emotional beyond the biological parts of it.
Yes, but I also think emotional is OK up to a certain point, but at some point you become irresponsible in my mind. But like I mentioned, this is just my view point and why I make personal decisions: I wouldn't want to go so far as to demand this is how everyone should be. People should be cognizant of their impact on the environment long-term and part of that is having more children than replace you...
Personally? I may have one of my own but I lean more and more toward only adoption for my personal situation.
-
There's no one solution for everyone.
Exactly. I have my viewpoint on it, and it is strong for me, but I acquiesce to the fact that others have a very different situation. =)
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
-
I'm in agreement with rockstache. I was the middle of three, and honestly, I would never have 3 kids. 1,2,4,5, whatever, but it was truly awful being the middle of three. (When you're the middle you're the greatest competition for both the youngest and the oldest, so you end up being very disliked). I took the hatred of my sisters and became a very accomplished and strong individual, so I can't say it was all bad, but I would never have 3 children because of what I went through.
However, I think you were talking about financial concerns, and for that everyone gave you good points: college costs, child care costs, vacation costs, etc. Not sure if anyone brought up the possibility of needing to upgrade your car to fit 3 car seats, but that's something to consider as well.
-
Mrsmeganmustaxhe, I did not use CIO, Ferber, etc as I consider sleep training unethical until babies have object permanence around 15 months.
But past 15 months, they still did not fucking sleep despite all efforts. Trust me, if your kid did sleep, you should shut your mouth about sleep before someone decks you with a cast iron skillet, which you will fully deserve.
-
But past 15 months, they still did not fucking sleep despite all efforts. Trust me, if your kid did sleep, you should shut your mouth about sleep before someone decks you with a cast iron skillet, which you will fully deserve.
Haha. Preach it. Parents of shitty sleepers unite. None of my kids slept through the night until they were over two. My first didn't sleep through the night until he was three, maybe even later. My sleep deprived brain really can't remember anymore.
My 21 month old still wakes up about 3-4 times a night. It sucks, but whatever. I reject anyone who says it is my fault. Some kids don't respond to CIO or sleep training. We can't control everything in life.
IIRC, the MMMs didn't have a second in large part because of sleep issues. I can totally understand this. I almost didn't have a third because of it. So what if that's what keeps you from having another kid? Something has got to make the decision for you. It might as well be something as important as sleep.
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this. That said, while we didn't do CIO, we definitely tried the techniques advocated in Bringing Up Bebe with our second and were already naturally using some of the techniques before encountering the book with our first. Our first started doing her nights at around 2 or 3 months, and our second (with whom we stuck pretty closely to the BUB suggestions) started doing them at 2 weeks. The thing is that for the folks who believe that baby sleep is predominantly genetic, rather than cultural, every story of parents who did anything to teach sleep hygiene will be somewhere on the scale of child abuse. Of course, for the folks who believe that baby sleep is predominantly cultural and not genetic, the idea of having babies who wake up 3 or more times a night until they're 1 or 2 will seem like lunacy.
-
Allow me to add one more voice to the "Don't do it, the earth is overpopulated" chorus. I would never advise someone to make major life decisions based on the opinion of random strangers on the internet, but if you do decide to deliberately have a third child, you will earn my scorn, for what that's worth. Having three kids in any society that is consuming more than a sustainable level of resources (and most countries in the world today are) is completely socially irresponsible, IMO. More on that here: www.globalfootprintnetwork.org Even if your particular country is "struggling to sustain replacement population", that's a problem easily solved by immigration today and for the long foreseeable future. Not a reason to have a third kid. The simple math is that everyone who makes that decision increases their family's resource consumption by 50% on a per generation basis, or your kids make do with less than you did. Neither of those outcomes are ones I consider to be either responsible or loving, but those are my personal values. YMMV.
-
Having three kids in any society that is consuming more than a sustainable level of resources (and most countries in the world today are) is completely socially irresponsible, IMO. ...
The simple math is that everyone who makes that decision increases their family's resource consumption by 50% on a per generation basis, or your kids make do with less than you did.
Well put.
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second. Have you done a poll or something or is this just a assumption that you made out of thin air?
Go to the recent thread about "I hate breastfeeding" and you will find almost exclusive support and permission (not that she needed it) for her to quit, in light of her obvious difficulties and distress. This wouldn't have occurred if what you say is true.
I just don't like putting people in parenting boxes like that. I don't consider myself wedded to "attachment parenting" any more than I am to any other philosophy.
Talk to a parent some time who had a fabulous sleeper and a not so great second sleeper. First they patted themselves on the back for how well they established healthy sleep habits with the first. Then number two came around and threw that all out the window. None of the same tactics worked. Apparently they didn't have as much control over the process as they thought they did.
I will grant you that sleep training works for some kids. And FWIW, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think it perfectly harmless on a child over six months. Even before that, it is nowhere near child abuse. It just wasn't what we wanted to do, nor is it this magic bullet for every child who has ever been born. Anyone who tells you that they let their child cry for 15 minutes and they slept through the night for the rest of their babyhood was going to sleep well without that 15 minute crying session. Even Ferber grants that often travel, sickness or any other change in routine will mean you have to re-sleep train. We just didn't want to do that. That doesn't make me a Sears-loving attachment parent. It just makes me someone who made my own decisions about what I wanted and didn't want to do.
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
My son was a colicky baby. He didn't sleep through the night until he was nearly two. Probably averaged about 3 hrs of screaming each 8 hour period that we were trying to sleep for the first year. Now that he's more than two he will sleep through the night maybe three or four days a week, waking up to scream for 5-10 minutes 3-4 times each other night. We tried sleep training/controlled crying/CIO. It didn't work. Nothing worked. We just learned to sleep with earplugs and accept not getting much sleep as the new normal.
My theory is that people who have children who sleep through the night well don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to poorly sleeping children because they haven't had one. Sleep deprivation is hell. It changes who you are to someone worse. It is absolutely a valid reason not have another kid, and shouldn't be questioned by someone who has never experienced it.
-
Allow me to add one more voice to the "Don't do it, the earth is overpopulated" chorus. I would never advise someone to make major life decisions based on the opinion of random strangers on the internet, but if you do decide to deliberately have a third child, you will earn my scorn, for what that's worth. Having three kids in any society that is consuming more than a sustainable level of resources (and most countries in the world today are) is completely socially irresponsible, IMO. More on that here: www.globalfootprintnetwork.org Even if your particular country is "struggling to sustain replacement population", that's a problem easily solved by immigration today and for the long foreseeable future. Not a reason to have a third kid. The simple math is that everyone who makes that decision increases their family's resource consumption by 50% on a per generation basis, or your kids make do with less than you did. Neither of those outcomes are ones I consider to be either responsible or loving, but those are my personal values. YMMV.
I agree with this. People in US consume disproportionately more resources than a person in developing countries, an argument against having multiple kids. The replacement issue is easily solved by immigration from less well off countries. My husband except for momentarily didn't want a third kid, but we were both in agreement a) not to have a 3rd child, or b) if we did have a 3rd kid it would be adopted.
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
I had horrible sleepers and we did attempt to sleep train with multiple methods with both. With my first we gave up on Ferber when each night started getting progressively worse instead of better. Eventually he started vomiting from crying so hard and tried to climb out of the crib at about 8 months old (he fell).
We did the "no cry sleep solution" and it worked a bit better and I would even say it helped both kids. But even then they went from 7-10 wake ups a night to 4-5 so I was still seriously sleep deprived. At two and four they still wake up a lot (I was up two times last night and my husband got up once).
I've come to the conclusion my kids are bad sleepers and at this point I'm pretty sure it is genetic. I've never needed a ton of sleep, give me 5 hours a night and I'm good to go. It takes me at least 45 minutes to fall asleep at night and my kids are the same (my husband conks out in about 5 minutes).
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this. That said, while we didn't do CIO, we definitely tried the techniques advocated in Bringing Up Bebe with our second and were already naturally using some of the techniques before encountering the book with our first. Our first started doing her nights at around 2 or 3 months, and our second (with whom we stuck pretty closely to the BUB suggestions) started doing them at 2 weeks. The thing is that for the folks who believe that baby sleep is predominantly genetic, rather than cultural, every story of parents who did anything to teach sleep hygiene will be somewhere on the scale of child abuse. Of course, for the folks who believe that baby sleep is predominantly cultural and not genetic, the idea of having babies who wake up 3 or more times a night until they're 1 or 2 will seem like lunacy.
For the record, you can "attachment parent" and still help a baby learn to self sooth and sleep effectively - they aren't mutually exclusive. We co-sleep (safely, with baby in her own bassinet right up next to our bed) and all it took was reaching a hand in and placing it on her chest to lull her back to sleep when she fussed. Now at 4 months, she overall is a great sleeper. Part of this is due to her personality (very laid back, happy baby, rarely cries except when physically uncomfortable or lonely) but I also think it is due to the fact that we never "rewarded" general fussiness and avoided overstimulating her when we knew she was safe/comfortable/fed/dry at night. The hand technique was great, it says "I'm here, I'm with you" but also "it is time for bed, we aren't getting up." It also avoids the stimulation caused by picking a baby up and moving them, which can further wake an otherwise drowsy baby.
-
Allow me to add one more voice to the "Don't do it, the earth is overpopulated" chorus. I would never advise someone to make major life decisions based on the opinion of random strangers on the internet, but if you do decide to deliberately have a third child, you will earn my scorn, for what that's worth. Having three kids in any society that is consuming more than a sustainable level of resources (and most countries in the world today are) is completely socially irresponsible, IMO. More on that here: www.globalfootprintnetwork.org Even if your particular country is "struggling to sustain replacement population", that's a problem easily solved by immigration today and for the long foreseeable future. Not a reason to have a third kid. The simple math is that everyone who makes that decision increases their family's resource consumption by 50% on a per generation basis, or your kids make do with less than you did. Neither of those outcomes are ones I consider to be either responsible or loving, but those are my personal values. YMMV.
I agree with this. People in US consume disproportionately more resources than a person in developing countries, an argument against having multiple kids. The replacement issue is easily solved by immigration from less well off countries. My husband except for momentarily didn't want a third kid, but we were both in agreement a) not to have a 3rd child, or b) if we did have a 3rd kid it would be adopted.
I take issue with the "easily solved" part. You are talking about massive re-distributions of populations into unknown countries where they will have to assimilate. And immigrant populations usually continue to produce higher numbers of children over their first few generations in the new country as well....so it's not like they will move to a new country and poof! they'll stop having more than the "allowable" 2 kids. Not to mention that immigrant groups typically are less educated in the first few generations, so they don't solve an immediate need for workers in all sectors. Finally, mass migrations often leave the originating areas in even more deplorable states, resulting in fewer resources like birth control and healthcare for the remaining population (so it's not like it solves the birth control issue there). It is true that the US consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, but this could be addressed in far more appropriate ways than telling people they suck for having more than 2 kids.How about we drastically reduce or eliminate meat and dairy production and reroute all those resources to growing sustainable grains and vegetables? Or put oil and gas caps on the population, not allowing people to consume more than a specific amount per year? What if we put a moratorium on any new homes over 1600sq feet? Either way, I think the idea of congratulating yourself for not having a 3rd kid as a selfless altruistic act is a touch naive, and judgmental to boot. If a smaller family works for you, then that is fabulous! But don't think it makes you a better person.
Unless you are an off the grid, vegan hippie who eschews fossil fuels (including any index investments that support these industries) and anything produced by big ag/big fashion/big pharma/logging/etc, it's tough to cast aspersions against someone with 3 kids without looking seriously hypocritical. If you are said hippe, my hat is off to you. You have certainly earned the right to look down on the rest of us.
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
I have 10 month old fraternal twin boys. I think this gives me a unique perspective on sleep and sleep training. My boys have been raised exactly the same thus far. We did modified CIO when they were around 6 months old. One responded great and learned how to go to sleep easily. The other one got so worked up that it took him 10x longer to go to sleep than if you just cuddled and rocked him down. Now they both sleep through the night at 10 months. In my opinion sleep training is a joke. A baby is born a good or bad sleeper. My guy that responeed great to sleep training responded well because he was a great sleeper to begin with, not because I am some magical sleep genie! I tell my pregnant friends - Read all the sleep books you want. You'll drive yourself crazy, because your babies didn't read the books...
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
I think you are lucky in that you got a good sleeper!
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second. Have you done a poll or something or is this just a assumption that you made out of thin air?
Go to the recent thread about "I hate breastfeeding" and you will find almost exclusive support and permission (not that she needed it) for her to quit, in light of her obvious difficulties and distress. This wouldn't have occurred if what you say is true.
I just don't like putting people in parenting boxes like that. I don't consider myself wedded to "attachment parenting" any more than I am to any other philosophy.
Talk to a parent some time who had a fabulous sleeper and a not so great second sleeper. First they patted themselves on the back for how well they established healthy sleep habits with the first. Then number two came around and threw that all out the window. None of the same tactics worked. Apparently they didn't have as much control over the process as they thought they did.
I will grant you that sleep training works for some kids. And FWIW, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think it perfectly harmless on a child over six months. Even before that, it is nowhere near child abuse. It just wasn't what we wanted to do, nor is it this magic bullet for every child who has ever been born. Anyone who tells you that they let their child cry for 15 minutes and they slept through the night for the rest of their babyhood was going to sleep well without that 15 minute crying session. Even Ferber grants that often travel, sickness or any other change in routine will mean you have to re-sleep train. We just didn't want to do that. That doesn't make me a Sears-loving attachment parent. It just makes me someone who made my own decisions about what I wanted and didn't want to do.
Thank you! My point indeed! I just want to give huge eye rolls to people who claim they have great sleeper because they did sleep training. No! You have a good sleeper because you gave birth to a child that sleeps easily not because you're a fucking sleep genie. Okay, I'm off my high horse.
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
I have 10 month old fraternal twin boys. I think this gives me a unique perspective on sleep and sleep training. My boys have been raised exactly the same thus far. We did modified CIO when they were around 6 months old. One responded great and learned how to go to sleep easily. The other one got so worked up that it took him 10x longer to go to sleep than if you just cuddled and rocked him down. Now they both sleep through the night at 10 months. In my opinion sleep training is a joke. A baby is born a good or bad sleeper. My guy that responeed great to sleep training responded well because he was a great sleeper to begin with, not because I am some magical sleep genie! I tell my pregnant friends - Read all the sleep books you want. You'll drive yourself crazy, because your babies didn't read the books...
Hear hear.
The great thing about having more than 1 kid is that it makes you realize you can't ever give another parent advice based on your own experience with your 1 kid. Because every baby is different. My son was a laid back baby and never cried for more than a few minutes at a time. When he was a few months old I was daydreaming about baby #2. Then my daughter comes along and she can scream for over an hour. Even nursing didn't help her get back to sleep at night. I am never, ever going to have a third.
-
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
- GuitarStv's thoughts on having more children than you have hands.
Luckily the wife and I both have two hands each so 4 is not a problem. :)
-
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
- GuitarStv's thoughts on having more children than you have hands.
Luckily the wife and I both have two hands each so 4 is not a problem. :)
And if you've got a double stroller, you can seat-belt in the youngest two, and you can handle six easily!
-
1st baby - horrible sleeper in spite of trying lots of things. He's 4 now and stil doesnt like to sleep although he does sleep thru the night 3-4 nights a week. I'm convinced its his personality, hes always "doing something" and making plans.
2nd baby -was prepared for one like the 1st and was pleasantly surprised by a "good sleeper". SOO much easier. His personality is more laid back as well.
We both kind of want a 3rd but I DONT want another bad sleeper and thats a huge factor for me. The rest of the crap I can handle but not another 2 years of sleep deprivation.
Good luck OP, whatever you decide.
-
As the 3rd child, I'll say it's easy for one kid to become the third wheel at any moment. This peaked for me in middle school (groaning just thinking about it now). Kids can be mean, even to their siblings, when they feel they aren't getting enough attention (i.e. parents split 3 ways).
-
To me the question isn't so much how many kids are being born, but how many are being born into stable family situations (however you want to define that) and are being raised to be well-adjusted, productive adults. Many of us would say that our collective record isn't so great on that. But what matters is your individual situation; what resources you are able and willing to bring into it. We've also had a "baby bust" in recent years, so one can argue the school and university systems have room for the kids born now or a couple years ago.
In my view, people are welcome to have however many kids they want that they can provide for on a decent level. That is also a subjective concept, I know. One aunt/uncle pair in my family had 5 kids; they're awesome parents and the kids all turned out well. Should they have stopped at 3? (There was a late life surprise on the youngest). Those kids did not have a lot of fancy toys growing up, and they were mostly on their own for college, but those "kids" all look out for each other. My dad was one of seven and while there are a few issues in family dynamics, the benefits outweighed the costs for the most part. Being part of a close knit, supportive family is something money can't buy. However, one of my other cousins is an only child, and his parents wouldn't have been doing the world a favor by having a second one...even though they could well afford it.
Providing zero money for education I think is irresponsible nowadays... so that does fit into the "big picture" cost. But I am only on the "trying to conceive" end myself, and am going to a fertility clinic. Having ONE kid is the question for me and Sweetie right now, much less 3. :-/
-
Thank you all for indulging my side-tracking this discussion to poor sleep/sleep training. Many of you have helped me appreciate the point that some kids do not respond to sleep training and that contributes to some parents’ poor sleep. The story of the twins is particularly fascinating. It also sounds like some of the poor sleep for some parents’ could possibly be reduced with use of sleep training, but that some parents do not want to use it, for various reasons.
I will take issue with a few of the responses suggesting that sleep ability is all genetic or that sleep training doesn’t work. The best research indicates that it does work, on average. See this nice review of the research (about half way down the page) http://scienceofmom.com/2012/03/09/infant-sleep-research-cosleeping-self-soothing-and-sleep-training/. And here is the link to an academic review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17068979. There is high quality evidence from large, well-controlled randomized trials that sleep training improves kids sleep (on average) and is not damaging to children.
That doesn’t mean it will work for all kids. I think it is safe to say that there are kids that are great sleepers no matter what is done, kids that are bad sleepers no matter what is done, but clearly there are many that respond to sleep training as evidenced by the above cited research. My kid was by no means a great sleeper (and still isn't a great sleeper), but I found that sleep training was rapidly effective in improving his sleeping (so far; I accept that things could go to hell any time now). It also helps that I'm a good sleeper and can quickly get back to sleep after he wakes me up. For the record, I hope to have one more kid, and I hope I am so luck as to have one that is responsive to sleep training.
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second.
Meh, you don't have to. It's been my observation from these kinds of threads, and I stand by everything I wrote. And my greater point, which you conveniently excised in your quotation (I can do that too!) is that if you believe baby sleep is primarily genetic, you're not going to buy the idea that you can teach kids good sleep habits. If you believe it's primarily cultural, you're not going to buy the idea that you're at the mercy of your baby's innateness.
-
I've noticed that several folks have mentioned sleep deprivation as a con of having more kids. I only have 1 so far, and he is a baby still, so i recognize that i should probably withhold judgement, but I've found the sleep issue so far to be overblown (after the first few months, which were intense). I have a theory related to this that could be totally wrong, so I seek confirmation or disagreement. My theory is that people who have significant sleep issues with kids are not using sleep training/controlled-crying/CIO methods (on average; of course there will be exceptions). Those of you on this thread who mentioned sleep deprivation, did you use these methods? I've heard they don't work for everyone and I'm sure that it is harder with more than 1. And I know some people don't like sleep training for various reasons, but it strikes me as a little sad for sleep deprivation to be a reason to not have another kid when it can (possibly?) be avoided/mitigated. Not trying to start the mommy wars here, but I am genuinely curious about this (and I know i may come to regret my confidence in sleep training in a few months, or with the next kid, although I've seen it work great for many families).
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this. That said, while we didn't do CIO, we definitely tried the techniques advocated in Bringing Up Bebe with our second and were already naturally using some of the techniques before encountering the book with our first. Our first started doing her nights at around 2 or 3 months, and our second (with whom we stuck pretty closely to the BUB suggestions) started doing them at 2 weeks. The thing is that for the folks who believe that baby sleep is predominantly genetic, rather than cultural, every story of parents who did anything to teach sleep hygiene will be somewhere on the scale of child abuse. Of course, for the folks who believe that baby sleep is predominantly cultural and not genetic, the idea of having babies who wake up 3 or more times a night until they're 1 or 2 will seem like lunacy.
For the record, you can "attachment parent" and still help a baby learn to self sooth and sleep effectively - they aren't mutually exclusive. We co-sleep (safely, with baby in her own bassinet right up next to our bed) and all it took was reaching a hand in and placing it on her chest to lull her back to sleep when she fussed. Now at 4 months, she overall is a great sleeper. Part of this is due to her personality (very laid back, happy baby, rarely cries except when physically uncomfortable or lonely) but I also think it is due to the fact that we never "rewarded" general fussiness and avoided overstimulating her when we knew she was safe/comfortable/fed/dry at night. The hand technique was great, it says "I'm here, I'm with you" but also "it is time for bed, we aren't getting up." It also avoids the stimulation caused by picking a baby up and moving them, which can further wake an otherwise drowsy baby.
I agree completely with you, and your description is quite close to what we did with both, even though we moved both kids to their own cribs after a couple of months.
-
Thank you all for indulging my side-tracking this discussion to poor sleep/sleep training. Many of you have helped me appreciate the point that some kids do not respond to sleep training and that contributes to some parents’ poor sleep. The story of the twins is particularly fascinating. It also sounds like some of the poor sleep for some parents’ could possibly be reduced with use of sleep training, but that some parents do not want to use it, for various reasons.
I will take issue with a few of the responses suggesting that sleep ability is all genetic or that sleep training doesn’t work. The best research indicates that it does work, on average. See this nice review of the research (about half way down the page) http://scienceofmom.com/2012/03/09/infant-sleep-research-cosleeping-self-soothing-and-sleep-training/. And here is the link to an academic review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17068979. There is high quality evidence from large, well-controlled randomized trials that sleep training improves kids sleep (on average) and is not damaging to children.
That doesn’t mean it will work for all kids. I think it is safe to say that there are kids that are great sleepers no matter what is done, kids that are bad sleepers no matter what is done, but clearly there are many that respond to sleep training as evidenced by the above cited research. My kid was by no means a great sleeper (and still isn't a great sleeper), but I found that sleep training was rapidly effective in improving his sleeping (so far; I accept that things could go to hell any time now). It also helps that I'm a good sleeper and can quickly get back to sleep after he wakes me up. For the record, I hope to have one more kid, and I hope I am so luck as to have one that is responsive to sleep training.
It's a worthy side-track. And of course, you're completely correct that the research shows it does work. However, this is one of the (many) areas of this forum where dogma frequently trumps evidence (similar sacred cows include the Paleo diet, bicycling risks, and early forward-facing).
-
Regarding a third child....one of or friends had 4 boys. They thought that they were done, wven though they very much both wanted a little girl. Finally, time is passing and if they are going to try ne more time for a little girl, it had to be soon. He balked, but she persisted with images of cute a cute little daughter. Pregnancy happened. Then about 4 months down the trail, she went to the doctor. Ultrasound proved what the doctor suspected, she was having TRIPLETS! To his great credit, he didnt faint when she told him. The babies were all born without incident and they named them James, Mark, and Joseph.
So sometimes, no matter how you figure and plan, things just happen.
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second.
Meh, you don't have to. It's been my observation from these kinds of threads, and I stand by everything I wrote. And my greater point, which you conveniently excised in your quotation (I can do that too!) is that if you believe baby sleep is primarily genetic, you're not going to buy the idea that you can teach kids good sleep habits. If you believe it's primarily cultural, you're not going to buy the idea that you're at the mercy of your baby's innateness.
I took issue with how you said "almost exclusively." Quoting just the part I disagreed with is indeed convenient for moving conversations forward, although not in the mustache-twirling, conspiratorial way you make it out to be. It wasn't intended to misrepresent you. I'm not out to start a war of words or wits here. I was just genuinely flummoxed by how you think that such a diverse group of people would "almost exclusively" adhere to one parenting style. It belies the diversity so often displayed on this forum.
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second.
Meh, you don't have to. It's been my observation from these kinds of threads, and I stand by everything I wrote. And my greater point, which you conveniently excised in your quotation (I can do that too!) is that if you believe baby sleep is primarily genetic, you're not going to buy the idea that you can teach kids good sleep habits. If you believe it's primarily cultural, you're not going to buy the idea that you're at the mercy of your baby's innateness.
I took issue with how you said "almost exclusively." Quoting just the part I disagreed with is indeed convenient for moving conversations forward, although not in the mustache-twirling, conspiratorial way you make it out to be. It wasn't intended to misrepresent you. I'm not out to start a war of words or wits here. I was just genuinely flummoxed by how you think that such a diverse group of people would "almost exclusively" adhere to one parenting style. It belies the diversity so often displayed on this forum.
There's definitely diversity on the forum, but there's also a lot of group-think on certain issues, and baby sleep is one of them. In pretty much every thread on it, the consensus is almost always that you shouldn't expect to sleep during your first year or two, and that if you did, you were lucky and shouldn't take any credit for it. It's a very disempowering attitude that's mocked with equal fervor whenever the topic is centered on people complaining about student loans, credit card debt, foreclosures, or anything else that has to do with money, educational attainment, or other areas where forum members tend to be highly successful.
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second.
Meh, you don't have to. It's been my observation from these kinds of threads, and I stand by everything I wrote. And my greater point, which you conveniently excised in your quotation (I can do that too!) is that if you believe baby sleep is primarily genetic, you're not going to buy the idea that you can teach kids good sleep habits. If you believe it's primarily cultural, you're not going to buy the idea that you're at the mercy of your baby's innateness.
I took issue with how you said "almost exclusively." Quoting just the part I disagreed with is indeed convenient for moving conversations forward, although not in the mustache-twirling, conspiratorial way you make it out to be. It wasn't intended to misrepresent you. I'm not out to start a war of words or wits here. I was just genuinely flummoxed by how you think that such a diverse group of people would "almost exclusively" adhere to one parenting style. It belies the diversity so often displayed on this forum.
There's definitely diversity on the forum, but there's also a lot of group-think on certain issues, and baby sleep is one of them. In pretty much every thread on it, the consensus is almost always that you shouldn't expect to sleep during your first year or two, and that if you did, you were lucky and shouldn't take any credit for it. It's a very disempowering attitude that's mocked with equal fervor whenever the topic is centered on people complaining about student loans, credit card debt, foreclosures, or anything else that has to do with money, educational attainment, or other areas where forum members tend to be highly successful.
I understand your frustration and share it usually. In general, victimhood is not a healthy stance to take. But the main difference I would say between the whole issue of parenting -- and in this case infant sleep -- and the other financial issues you mention is that we are talking about a separate human being here with his or her own wants, needs, and personality. The other issues you mention like student loans and debt we have direct and mostly total control over. But children? Not so much. They subvert expectations. They are not our puppets.
Ultimately, and this is my parenting philosophy in a nutshell, we shouldn't take credit for much. Conversely, we shouldn't take much blame for things either. I just think it leads to a healthier mindset overall as a parent. Taking credit for your kid sleeping better, walking sooner than other kids, reading before other kids, getting a higher SAT score, graduating summa cum laude, and on and on and on. I guess I just don't know when it stops. I'd rather extricate myself from it in infancy.
Note- I am only talking about myself here and my own feelings towards my kids and their "accomplishments." (Can sleeping through the night really be considered an accomplishment?) When as a parent do I stop taking credit? My solution was to never take credit and just accept whatever good -- and conversely bad -- things they do. They don't excel because I'm awesome. They don't fail because I'm terrible. Ultimately it's not about me at all. That's not to say I don't strive to do my best and provide the best setting in which they can thrive. But taking credit for things? I just think it's a slippery slope when it comes to parenthood. I don't think that makes people a victim in the same way that whining about your credit card debt does.
I hope that made sense.
-
Allow me to add one more voice to the "Don't do it, the earth is overpopulated" chorus. I would never advise someone to make major life decisions based on the opinion of random strangers on the internet, but if you do decide to deliberately have a third child, you will earn my scorn, for what that's worth. Having three kids in any society that is consuming more than a sustainable level of resources (and most countries in the world today are) is completely socially irresponsible, IMO. More on that here: www.globalfootprintnetwork.org Even if your particular country is "struggling to sustain replacement population", that's a problem easily solved by immigration today and for the long foreseeable future. Not a reason to have a third kid. The simple math is that everyone who makes that decision increases their family's resource consumption by 50% on a per generation basis, or your kids make do with less than you did. Neither of those outcomes are ones I consider to be either responsible or loving, but those are my personal values. YMMV.
I agree with this. People in US consume disproportionately more resources than a person in developing countries, an argument against having multiple kids. The replacement issue is easily solved by immigration from less well off countries. My husband except for momentarily didn't want a third kid, but we were both in agreement a) not to have a 3rd child, or b) if we did have a 3rd kid it would be adopted.
I take issue with the "easily solved" part. You are talking about massive re-distributions of populations into unknown countries where they will have to assimilate. And immigrant populations usually continue to produce higher numbers of children over their first few generations in the new country as well....so it's not like they will move to a new country and poof! they'll stop having more than the "allowable" 2 kids. Not to mention that immigrant groups typically are less educated in the first few generations, so they don't solve an immediate need for workers in all sectors. Finally, mass migrations often leave the originating areas in even more deplorable states, resulting in fewer resources like birth control and healthcare for the remaining population (so it's not like it solves the birth control issue there). It is true that the US consumes a disproportionate amount of resources, but this could be addressed in far more appropriate ways than telling people they suck for having more than 2 kids.How about we drastically reduce or eliminate meat and dairy production and reroute all those resources to growing sustainable grains and vegetables? Or put oil and gas caps on the population, not allowing people to consume more than a specific amount per year? What if we put a moratorium on any new homes over 1600sq feet? Either way, I think the idea of congratulating yourself for not having a 3rd kid as a selfless altruistic act is a touch naive, and judgmental to boot. If a smaller family works for you, then that is fabulous! But don't think it makes you a better person.
Unless you are an off the grid, vegan hippie who eschews fossil fuels (including any index investments that support these industries) and anything produced by big ag/big fashion/big pharma/logging/etc, it's tough to cast aspersions against someone with 3 kids without looking seriously hypocritical. If you are said hippe, my hat is off to you. You have certainly earned the right to look down on the rest of us.
Agreed, and gels with what I noted about the slippery slope perspective. If 3 is too many, 2 is too many, and 1 is also too many; there are plenty of reasons against having any children. MMM was rightfully derided for his hypocrisy some months ago in the comment section when he made that post about how dog ownership was optional (yet refused to apply the same logic to their decision to have a child to begin with).
-
Folks around here are almost exclusively attachment-parenting types, so you're probably going to get lots of heat for this.
What a gross generalization. I don't believe this for a second.
Meh, you don't have to. It's been my observation from these kinds of threads, and I stand by everything I wrote. And my greater point, which you conveniently excised in your quotation (I can do that too!) is that if you believe baby sleep is primarily genetic, you're not going to buy the idea that you can teach kids good sleep habits. If you believe it's primarily cultural, you're not going to buy the idea that you're at the mercy of your baby's innateness.
I took issue with how you said "almost exclusively." Quoting just the part I disagreed with is indeed convenient for moving conversations forward, although not in the mustache-twirling, conspiratorial way you make it out to be. It wasn't intended to misrepresent you. I'm not out to start a war of words or wits here. I was just genuinely flummoxed by how you think that such a diverse group of people would "almost exclusively" adhere to one parenting style. It belies the diversity so often displayed on this forum.
There's definitely diversity on the forum, but there's also a lot of group-think on certain issues, and baby sleep is one of them. In pretty much every thread on it, the consensus is almost always that you shouldn't expect to sleep during your first year or two, and that if you did, you were lucky and shouldn't take any credit for it. It's a very disempowering attitude that's mocked with equal fervor whenever the topic is centered on people complaining about student loans, credit card debt, foreclosures, or anything else that has to do with money, educational attainment, or other areas where forum members tend to be highly successful.
I understand your frustration and share it usually. In general, victimhood is not a healthy stance to take. But the main difference I would say between the whole issue of parenting -- and in this case infant sleep -- and the other financial issues you mention is that we are talking about a separate human being here with his or her own wants, needs, and personality. The other issues you mention like student loans and debt we have direct and mostly total control over. But children? Not so much. They subvert expectations. They are not our puppets.
Ultimately, and this is my parenting philosophy in a nutshell, we shouldn't take credit for much. Conversely, we shouldn't take much blame for things either. I just think it leads to a healthier mindset overall as a parent. Taking credit for your kid sleeping better, walking sooner than other kids, reading before other kids, getting a higher SAT score, graduating summa cum laude, and on and on and on. I guess I just don't know when it stops. I'd rather extricate myself from it in infancy.
Note- I am only talking about myself here and my own feelings towards my kids and their "accomplishments." (Can sleeping through the night really be considered an accomplishment?) When as a parent do I stop taking credit? My solution was to never take credit and just accept whatever good -- and conversely bad -- things they do. They don't excel because I'm awesome. They don't fail because I'm terrible. Ultimately it's not about me at all. That's not to say I don't strive to do my best and provide the best setting in which they can thrive. But taking credit for things? I just think it's a slippery slope when it comes to parenthood. I don't think that makes people a victim in the same way that whining about your credit card debt does.
I hope that made sense.
I agree with much of what you write here. Rather than taking credit, a better way to express what I mean would be recognition of your influence. There's lots of stuff outside of our control, but there are lots of things we can influence, and in my books, that's at the heart of parenting. I can't keep my kids from becoming obese 30 years from now, but I can strongly influence their food hygiene by preparing and providing healthy foods the vast majority of times we sit down to eat together. There are similar examples in pretty much every area of raising a human being. Folks here realize this and readily talk about it in many of these areas--there's an entire subforum dedicated to parenting and influencing (parenting, teaching, whatever you call it) our kids. I just see this (our influence on sleep hygiene) as one of the blind spots here, much as many here would see the lack of discussions about finances with children to be a blind spot in other families.
And regarding sleeping through the night being considered an accomplishment...there's a boat load of research discussing how poor sleep hygiene / patterns in infants is associated with maternal depression, higher stress levels, child abuse, divorce, and a number of other ugly things. I wouldn't call it an accomplishment in the sense of a top SAT score or anything else you mentioned, but a crucial part of a child's integration into his or her family.
-
And regarding sleeping through the night being considered an accomplishment...there's a boat load of research discussing how poor sleep hygiene / patterns in infants is associated with maternal depression, higher stress levels, child abuse, divorce, and a number of other ugly things. I wouldn't call it an accomplishment in the sense of a top SAT score or anything else you mentioned, but a crucial part of a child's integration into his or her family.
And this likely gets to the heart of the issue here. Not having your kid sleep is a deeply, deeply traumatic thing. It's one of the worst things I've ever had to go through. I've struggled with depression most of my life, but the darkest depression of my life was when my first child was waking up 10-15 times a night. I wouldn't wish that kind of torture on someone I hated. Yet I had to go through it. If you label good sleep hygiene (strange term, but I know you're not making it up) something that I as a parent ultimately should have had control over or could change, then I am a big fat failure. Not once. Not twice. Three damned times. If I could have found a way to change it, I would have. I think that's the niggling problem with it all; nobody wants to be called a failure and it's implicit in your argument (mind you, I don't think I am actually a failure, but as you have said multiple times, "the research says").
From the vantage point of the sufferers, talk about adding insult to injury! Parents with kids "with good sleep hygiene" get to sleep and they get to imply that if I tried harder my kid would too? I think we have to leave the possibility open (despite what "the research says") that maybe they have experienced something profound and maybe have come out of it with some insight. That maybe it's not just an attempt to whitewash reality and a big huge blind spot on their parts. Maybe they learned something early on about control and how little we actually have.
-
Three is way crazier than two. Three makes one feel like none. Three means five airplane tickets instead of four. Three means no to a lot of normal hotel rooms (sorry, only 4 to a room). Three means 2-3 more years in diapers. Three means the grandparents won't watch all of the grandchildren at the same time anymore. Three means a middle child who doesn't get to be the baby sister or the big sister. Three means another college education. Three means zone defense. Three is loud. Three is hard.
Three is way more than two when it's fun. Three makes adding in a cousin for four feel like nothing. Three means 50% more funny stories at the dinner table. Three means the one in the middle gets to be both a little sister and a big sister. Three means the dog piles are bigger and more fun. Three gets a little easier as they get older.
If you want your kids to be the primary thing in your life, have three. If you want your child to be an accessory with you as you live your life, have one. If you want something in the middle, have two.
-
Tell me what I need to consider? We are debating if we should have a third, I need to consider all financial implications/effects that I may have looked over.
The planet doesn't need more humans. If you have 2 what's driving the need to have another?
I used to believe this argument, but after looking into it a bit more, my opinion changed.
The overpopulation argument makes sense if populations and resources are relatively evenly dispersed but they aren't. There are areas that have very low birthrates, and governments are actually begging their populace to have children to ensure there are sufficient workers in future generations to keep the country afloat. Then there are countries seeing population booms, usually in emerging economies like India. If you live in an industrialized nation, the birth rate usually hovers around 2, and in some countries it's even lower than replacement level. This can make up for the larger more populated areas. The counterargument is that the world isn't overpopulated persay, it's just that there are overpopulated pockets for the resources available in a given area, and we aren't willing to make the necessary infrastructure and cultural changes necessary to ensure that everyone is cared for in a sustainable fashion. The idea that if wealthy people just forgo kids everything will be better is nonsense - all that happens is that we re-route even MORE resources to those lucky few kids we do have. Just take a look at the number of 1 and 2 kid families living in huge houses to see this in action.
Now, some could say that we should import individuals from overpopulated areas into areas where the birthrate is lower to try to "even out" the number of people without encouraging people to have more kids. But obviously that is a tough sell, for both the migrant group and the established citizenry of a specific area. There are also ethical implications involved with personal autonomy -is it fair to tell individuals it's their responsibility to not have kids just because there are segments of the population who are having more? Who knows.
But overall the earth is supporting too many people. Estimates are that we're consuming as though we had seven planets. I do think the world could use fewer people (most definitely!) but I disagree that we should shame each other into this (not saying anybody here is shaming anybody, BTW but I hear it in my circles). Mostly what we need is better education for girls in 3rd world countries. With education comes resilience, higher education and fewer births. As developed nations we need to stop using more than our share of resources. In terms of having one more child: I'm a middle child of three and I have three children myself. Mine are a year apart and we had just decided no more than two when the third child made herself known. My third child is hugely interested in science and technology and wants to be a resource engineer (environmental) or bio engineer. She deeply cares about health, the environment and other people. I suppose the odds were that I would have had a consumer-oriented, thoughtless child as well. And, no matter her outlook, she is still using up the earth's resources strictly from being on it. From an economic point of few having three children is more expensive even if you practice frugality -- 2 for 1 doesn't fit three kids, hotel rooms are fine when they are toddlers (we made our son decide if he was going to share a bed with one of his sisters and rotate the mat on the floor, or abandon the bed entirely, which he did when he was about 8). We haven't stayed in hotels in the last four years, but I'm guessing it would be pretty hard to slink the third teenager by the front desk (we'd try of course, and smile doing it!) For us, it became a matter of focusing our resources. We live frugally and the kids don't always have what their friends have. We are fairly highly-educated parents who live a bit of an alternate lifestyle off the hamster wheel which causes some raised eyebrows in our community. But our kids have hiked in some beautiful wilderness all over North America - with their parents!, they've met some awesome people, they've helped build a sustainable house which they now live in, they've been encouraged to follow their passions. They know we'll help them to do that financially (to a certain extent) but they also know they'll have to make some of their own decisions and earn their own way. They are in Grade 10, 11 and 12 so the next phase is upon us! They are dear, dear human beings...but after the third appeared husband and I drew straws to make sure we didn't have a #4. :)
-
We're not planning on having any kids, but when my sister got pregnant, my friend who is the father of three asked me to tell her that two is enough, three is too many and makes life just crazy. Two is in her plans anyway; she said that if the second is twins it would be her worst nightmare!
-
hotel rooms are fine when they are toddlers (we made our son decide if he was going to share a bed with one of his sisters and rotate the mat on the floor, or abandon the bed entirely, which he did when he was about 8). We haven't stayed in hotels in the last four years, but I'm guessing it would be pretty hard to slink the third teenager by the front desk (we'd try of course, and smile doing it!)
The advent of AirBNB and VRBO has been great for families of five or larger. Oftentimes you can get an entire apartment or even a house for the same price that you would pay for one hotel room. Next time you need to travel, I would try that instead.
-
I will take issue with a few of the responses suggesting that sleep ability is all genetic
That doesn’t mean it will work for all kids. I think it is safe to say that there are kids that are great sleepers no matter what is done, kids that are bad sleepers no matter what is done
As you just mentioned, how a kid sleeps is not chosen by the method you use with the kid . . . but by the individual kid him or her self. People don't have 'average' kids, so 'average' results from testing don't really have value. We have individual kids, and they all behave a bit differently from one another. This makes blanket statements of advice like what to do with a child who doesn't sleep well (when you've never experienced a bad sleeper) not only wrong, but quite aggravating.
-
I came from a family of 3, myself being the oldest. My middle brother felt like he was short-changed because the attention outside of the family seemed to be on me and my youngest brother. I was always happy with 2 brothers because at one time or another I would be close to one or the other. As an adult, my middle brother and I are the closest and hang out a lot together.
I had a lot of trouble with my 2nd pregnancy and was off work from the 3rd month. Even so, I was willing to have 3, but my husband only wanted 2. I did not have my tubes tied after number 2 and told my husband that if he did not want 3, he would have to have a vasectomy. Well, he was not keen on that, but when I had a pregnancy scare (late period from someone who was like clockwork), he RAN to the Doctor and had it done as fast as he could!
I am happy with 2 kids. They are very close to each other and us. Personally, I am glad I only had 2.
Miss Prim
-
Regarding a third child....one of or friends had 4 boys. They thought that they were done, wven though they very much both wanted a little girl. Finally, time is passing and if they are going to try ne more time for a little girl, it had to be soon. He balked, but she persisted with images of cute a cute little daughter. Pregnancy happened. Then about 4 months down the trail, she went to the doctor. Ultrasound proved what the doctor suspected, she was having TRIPLETS! To his great credit, he didnt faint when she told him. The babies were all born without incident and they named them James, Mark, and Joseph.
So sometimes, no matter how you figure and plan, things just happen.
So they went from four boys to seven? That's AWESOME!
-
GuitarStv, stating that "how a kid sleeps is not chosen by the method you use with the kid" is a very poor understanding of my point (I apologize if I'm not making it well). I believe, and the research supports, that a great many kids are very much responsive to the method you use. But that some are not. That is very different than stating that the method doesn't matter. We know that blood control medication works for most people, but not for all. Doesn't mean it doesn't work. Doesn't mean that those who it doesn't work for are doing anything wrong. Doesn't mean people should not take blood pressure medication if they have high blood pressure.
Also, how do you know that I (or others who now have good sleepers) did not at one time have "bad sleepers"? You don't know, and, in fact, I would characterize my child as a fairly poor sleeper prior to sleep training. Perhaps the fact that he responded to sleep training means that he was in fact a "good sleeper" all along, but if I had never tried sleep training he would be labeled a bad sleeper. The research shows that (some) bad sleepers can become good sleepers with certain techniques.
I think blanket advice to try sleep training (if poor sleep is making your life miserable) is very reasonable. Doesn't mean it is expected to work for everyone, but you don't know until you try.
-
From the vantage point of the sufferers, talk about adding insult to injury! Parents with kids "with good sleep hygiene" get to sleep and they get to imply that if I tried harder my kid would too? I think we have to leave the possibility open (despite what "the research says") that maybe they have experienced something profound and maybe have come out of it with some insight. That maybe it's not just an attempt to whitewash reality and a big huge blind spot on their parts. Maybe they learned something early on about control and how little we actually have.
Thanks justajane - I think you've nailed it exactly with the above. I can't tell you how many times people would question what I was doing: Night time routine - check, Ferber - check, Ferber for more than just a couple of nights - check (we did almost a week), put baby down while still awake- check, sugar? - of course no sugar, etc and on and on. And then they would look perplexed and basically say "well you must be doing something wrong, it worked fine for me." I still start to feel guilty every time I think about it. Anyways - this thread took quite the tangent , but an interesting one :)
-
Three in car seats is a grand ol pain in the ass. We managed it in our Toyota corolla only by buying expensive diono radians. Even so we only lasted a year before buying a minivan.
How on earth did you fit the Dionos in a Corolla?! We ordered a Diono and a Clek Fllo to see which one fit best in our 2007 Outback. Answer: neither, but the Clek fit the least badly, so now we have two of them (twins). I want to know what juju you used to stuff those things into a Corolla!!!
-
I tend to strongly disagree with the idea of having more than two. At that point, adopt if you want to take care of another one!!! Overpopulation bothers me. I grew up in Alabama though, where people seem to have tons of kids out of rural tradition (I suppose, I really don't know why they feel the urge to pop out so many).
I have never been privy to a logical reason for wanting more than two. It's always an emotional "We wanted another one" or "We were hoping for a girl/boy since we already have ___ of the opposite sex".
Well then ADOPT, people. Adopt.
But to each their own. =)
Adoption is not the simple solution you imagine. Do you know how much it costs to adopt? Unless you adopt out of foster care, which can be logistically and emotionally very difficult (fostering a kid, bonding with them, then having them sent back to their original negligent or abusive parents; or adopting a child who had a horrific first few years and lasting emotional problems as a result), adoption costs tens of thousands of bucks.
And stupid things can disqualify you, either during the home study (the agency might decide you're not rich enough or healthy enough) or when the biological mother chooses where her child goes (she might decide you're not Baptist enough, you're gay or a single parent and she doesn't want that, etc.).
And finally, there are way more people interested in adopting than there are children available for adoption. The last stats I saw (admittedly 2010) showed that in the entire USA, there were only 102,000 foster kids available for adoption--and kids in foster care are preferentially adopted to their relatives, meaning that if some aunt or second cousin wants the kid, you won't get him or her. And then of course, only maybe 20k women a year in the US decide to place their babies for adoption, which is a drop in the bucket when you consider that there are more than 7 million infertile people in the US and many more people who are fertile but want to adopt.
-
Two! Two!
Can you tell I was up at 1AM trying to get my 2.5 year old (!) second child to go back to sleep?
For the love of everything, two!
-
From the vantage point of the sufferers, talk about adding insult to injury! Parents with kids "with good sleep hygiene" get to sleep and they get to imply that if I tried harder my kid would too? I think we have to leave the possibility open (despite what "the research says") that maybe they have experienced something profound and maybe have come out of it with some insight. That maybe it's not just an attempt to whitewash reality and a big huge blind spot on their parts. Maybe they learned something early on about control and how little we actually have.
Thanks justajane - I think you've nailed it exactly with the above. I can't tell you how many times people would question what I was doing: Night time routine - check, Ferber - check, Ferber for more than just a couple of nights - check (we did almost a week), put baby down while still awake- check, sugar? - of course no sugar, etc and on and on. And then they would look perplexed and basically say "well you must be doing something wrong, it worked fine for me." I still start to feel guilty every time I think about it. Anyways - this thread took quite the tangent , but an interesting one :)
Agreed. I refrained from commenting earlier in the thread because the heart of the argument was "you're doing it wrong", which is infuriating and obnoxious. My own little anecdote: I have two kids. My oldest needed swaddling, rocking, loud white noise, correct planetary alignment, and blessings from the gods for at least an hour to get to sleep. I read all the books and finally accepted that I was a failure and/or basically broke her, and that her inability to self-soothe and fall asleep unaided was my fault. My son was born and he just...slept when he was tired. All. on. his. own. Kids are who they are, and and to take credit (or blame) assumes a lot more power than you actually have. Before our son was born my husband helped alleviate my guilt over failing on the sleep front by reminding me that authors of parenting books are out to make money. Everyone wants a "no-cry sleep solution"!
As for going from two to three: I wanted three (and even four), but my husband was firm on two (we have two). For a long time I felt like someone was missing from our family, but that feeling has diminished with time. I'm very thankful for this because there was definitely a period of grief over our missing child, which would have been challenging to endure over the long run. Good luck in your decision.
-
And regarding sleeping through the night being considered an accomplishment...there's a boat load of research discussing how poor sleep hygiene / patterns in infants is associated with maternal depression, higher stress levels, child abuse, divorce, and a number of other ugly things. I wouldn't call it an accomplishment in the sense of a top SAT score or anything else you mentioned, but a crucial part of a child's integration into his or her family.
And this likely gets to the heart of the issue here. Not having your kid sleep is a deeply, deeply traumatic thing. It's one of the worst things I've ever had to go through. I've struggled with depression most of my life, but the darkest depression of my life was when my first child was waking up 10-15 times a night. I wouldn't wish that kind of torture on someone I hated. Yet I had to go through it. If you label good sleep hygiene (strange term, but I know you're not making it up) something that I as a parent ultimately should have had control over or could change, then I am a big fat failure. Not once. Not twice. Three damned times. If I could have found a way to change it, I would have. I think that's the niggling problem with it all; nobody wants to be called a failure and it's implicit in your argument (mind you, I don't think I am actually a failure, but as you have said multiple times, "the research says").
From the vantage point of the sufferers, talk about adding insult to injury! Parents with kids "with good sleep hygiene" get to sleep and they get to imply that if I tried harder my kid would too? I think we have to leave the possibility open (despite what "the research says") that maybe they have experienced something profound and maybe have come out of it with some insight. That maybe it's not just an attempt to whitewash reality and a big huge blind spot on their parts. Maybe they learned something early on about control and how little we actually have.
Yes – this is like the whole “everyone can breastfeed if they try hard enough" argument – it just adds insult to injury. The fact is, if a little luck wasn't involved and nursing was all about effort, I would be like a dairy farm feeding all the hungry babies of the world! Alas, it certainly didn't turn out that way. I lucked out though with the sleep - easy going, good sleeper, and we were able to springboard off this by not overstimulating her at night and sabotaging a good thing.
I've started to view parenting like driving a car:
The amount of time and dedication you put into something, like nursing or sleep care, is like the gasoline you put in a tank. The more you put in, and the better quality, the farther your car will go.
But luck/genetics/fate/other uncontrollable circumstance is like the ignition – you need a little spark to get the whole thing rolling. It doesn’t matter if you have a full tank of premium gas, if you don’t have the ignition, you aren’t going anywhere. It has nothing to do with what’s in your tank or how badly you want that car to start moving.
A bit of luck + time and dedication + love = parenting success!
-
And regarding sleeping through the night being considered an accomplishment...there's a boat load of research discussing how poor sleep hygiene / patterns in infants is associated with maternal depression, higher stress levels, child abuse, divorce, and a number of other ugly things. I wouldn't call it an accomplishment in the sense of a top SAT score or anything else you mentioned, but a crucial part of a child's integration into his or her family.
If you label good sleep hygiene (strange term, but I know you're not making it up) something that I as a parent ultimately should have had control over or could change, then I am a big fat failure.
I label good sleep hygiene as something a parent can influence, much like a great many parts of parenting. Not something you or any other parent "should have had control over." I don't see you as a failure, but I do feel you're arguing against things I'm not saying.
I think we have to leave the possibility open (despite what "the research says") that maybe they have experienced something profound and maybe have come out of it with some insight.
This argument is one we could use for every part of life, including all of those that go against the very grain of this site's founder and community. I agree with it, but unless we're using it consistently, it's just hypocrisy. That means we don't get to judge parents for anything, including paying for their kids' college educations, paying for music lessons and sports leagues, paying to live in larger houses with long commutes in the suburbs, paying for newer and safer cars, paying for private schools, paying to live in the wealthy areas that support good public schools, paying for organic food...basically anything anyone ever does can be justified by the assumption that their actions led to insight.
-
I tend to strongly disagree with the idea of having more than two. At that point, adopt if you want to take care of another one!!! Overpopulation bothers me. I grew up in Alabama though, where people seem to have tons of kids out of rural tradition (I suppose, I really don't know why they feel the urge to pop out so many).
I have never been privy to a logical reason for wanting more than two. It's always an emotional "We wanted another one" or "We were hoping for a girl/boy since we already have ___ of the opposite sex".
Well then ADOPT, people. Adopt.
But to each their own. =)
Adoption is not the simple solution you imagine. Do you know how much it costs to adopt? Unless you adopt out of foster care, which can be logistically and emotionally very difficult (fostering a kid, bonding with them, then having them sent back to their original negligent or abusive parents; or adopting a child who had a horrific first few years and lasting emotional problems as a result), adoption costs tens of thousands of bucks.
And stupid things can disqualify you, either during the home study (the agency might decide you're not rich enough or healthy enough) or when the biological mother chooses where her child goes (she might decide you're not Baptist enough, you're gay or a single parent and she doesn't want that, etc.).
And finally, there are way more people interested in adopting than there are children available for adoption. The last stats I saw (admittedly 2010) showed that in the entire USA, there were only 102,000 foster kids available for adoption--and kids in foster care are preferentially adopted to their relatives, meaning that if some aunt or second cousin wants the kid, you won't get him or her. And then of course, only maybe 20k women a year in the US decide to place their babies for adoption, which is a drop in the bucket when you consider that there are more than 7 million infertile people in the US and many more people who are fertile but want to adopt.
I never suggested adoption was simple, I meant from the standpoint of ecological impact, adoption makes sense. But stating it costs "tens of thousands of dollars to adopt" is not always accurate. And if someone wants to adopt, there are many avenues and the process varies greatly for each system. I have friends that are in the process now through the US foster system: it isn't easy, but it isn't impossible either... and aren't we supposed to be working toward "Badassity" anyway?
Also, I don't know how those numbers can be right when there are so many kids that grow up and age out of the system. Not to mention, international adoptions are always an option.
My fiancee and I are preparing to adopt in a few years, not currently, but once we become eligible (if you're getting married, you have to be married 3 years in AL), so I have been doing research and talking to families we know that are in the process/have adopted.
For anyone who might read this reply and want more info in the US about adoption, here's a link:
http://www.adoptuskids.org/for-families/how-to-adopt/common-myths-about-adoption
-
hotel rooms are fine when they are toddlers (we made our son decide if he was going to share a bed with one of his sisters and rotate the mat on the floor, or abandon the bed entirely, which he did when he was about 8). We haven't stayed in hotels in the last four years, but I'm guessing it would be pretty hard to slink the third teenager by the front desk (we'd try of course, and smile doing it!)
The advent of AirBNB and VRBO has been great for families of five or larger. Oftentimes you can get an entire apartment or even a house for the same price that you would pay for one hotel room. Next time you need to travel, I would try that instead.
Yes, true. The last time we travelled was four years ago and we used booking.com to find low rates in Florida...housing crisis and all that...$50 a night for a three bedroom condo in a highly deserted and unfinished complex.
-
WE had 3 kids and never had a problem with renting just 1 hotel room. We would pay for a roll away bed to be put in the room for the 3rd kid.
-
WE had 3 kids and never had a problem with renting just 1 hotel room. We would pay for a roll away bed to be put in the room for the 3rd kid.
We've done that with more than 3 kids. :)
-
First off way to win the asshole of the year previous poster.
Three in car seats is a grand ol pain in the ass. We managed it in our Toyota corolla only by buying expensive diono radians. Even so we only lasted a year before buying a minivan.
How on earth did you fit the Dionos in a Corolla?! We ordered a Diono and a Clek Fllo to see which one fit best in our 2007 Outback. Answer: neither, but the Clek fit the least badly, so now we have two of them (twins). I want to know what juju you used to stuff those things into a Corolla!!!
See post #785 in the linked thread for the amazing 3-across in a Toyota Corolla.
http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?p=2554888#post2554888