deleted

[magnuminator]

If what the OP writes is true, he better make sure to wrap that rascal good or be ready to ditch sex all together because I see an "oopsing" in his future if she's that insistent.  I personally know of three women whose husbands were opposed to having another child who stopped their birth control because "oh, he'll love the new baby once it gets here!"  All of them got pregnant.  All of them are now divorced.

I'm not painting the OP to be the good guy or his wife the baddie, but like others have said the question of the number of children should have been settled before they got married.  It's not like a baby's like a puppy who can be taken back to the pound if things don't work out.

How do people who have never had a child settle the question of number of children before they are married?

Obviously, some people have had children before they're married and could perhaps settle the question, but a lot of people have no clue what having and raising a child is all about until they have one of the their own.

Before we got married, I would say my wife wanted more children than me.  We now have three children.  I would like to have a fourth, but she is not sure if she does or not.  It's not a huge deal right now as our youngest is 7 months old, and this could have something to do with her reluctance.  Her feelings may change over the next year or two or they may not.  Regardless, the question of whether to have another child will have to be negotiated at the time when it comes to decide versus 10 years ago when we were married.

Fair point, although I think that most people have some idea about other aspects of life that they value (or don't) that are impacted (positively or adversely) by children.  Someone who "knows" that they don't want children at all without having had one is just an extreme example.  (And by "extreme" I don't mean radical or outlandish, just at one end of a spectrum.)

[Spartana]

I agree with those that have stated that the OP shouldn't be dismissive of his wife's wishes and that her wanting a child isn't more or less selfish than the OP's desire for personal time

At the same time, I'm also happy to see that not too many people told the OP to just "do it for her".  His wants and needs are important, too.

I think Totoro and lizzzi are onto something in suggesting that it's worth considering forms of compromise

I agree with all these statements but I am kind of surprised that no one in this thread mentioned the possible impact on the kid/s that a "compromise" or decision to have a second child may have on those kids - just the impact on the couple and their relationship. The couple's choice will impact their relationship and that will greatly impact the kids too. Compromising, or worse just going along with the wife and having a second child, isn't like buying a car for her when he doesn't want a one. The choices the couple make (especially if it's against the will of the hubby) may potentially hurt the child/ren they have if they divorce, fight, etc... Choosing not to have a kid unless both want one seems to me the best choice because it has less ramification for harming the child/ren then choosing to have a child when you don't want one just to compromise with the DW or give in to her wishes.

[magnuminator]

Good point, Spartana.

I would encourage the OP to look into whether or not there are "win-win" options, but that doesn't mean there will be any.  In my case, for example, I would happy to have two children if the rest of my living situation were simpler or one child in a faster paced, more expensive city environment.  I just don't want both. (Or, to acknowledge Purple Economist's point, I don't think that I want both.)  That's really more about compromising other factors (from my wife's standpoint) in order to find a situation in which we'd both want two. 

It's quite possible or even probable that the OP's circumstances are too different for this to work and in that case I would agree that it would be better (for the children) not to have a child that both parents don't want to have.

[Spartana]

Good point, Spartana.

I would encourage the OP to look into whether or not there are "win-win" options, but that doesn't mean there will be any.  In my case, for example, I would happy to have two children if the rest of my living situation were simpler or one child in a faster paced, more expensive city environment.  I just don't want both. (Or, to acknowledge Purple Economist's point, I don't think that I want both.)  That's really more about compromising other factors (from my wife's standpoint) in order to find a situation in which we'd both want two. 

It's quite possible or even probable that the OP's circumstances are too different for this to work and in that case I would agree that it would be better (for the children) not to have a child that both parents don't want to have.

I think if the OP hadn't come across as so strongly negative towards the idea of having another child and it was more just a "do I or don't I" kind of thing then how it impacted the kids probably wouldn't matter as much. But he said he had such difficulty with just one - emotionally? Financially? timewise? all of the above? - that it seemed like he felt it would be an almost deplorable thing for to him to have another. And doing it with those feelings JUST to make the spouse happy isn't a justifiable reason for the couple but more so for the kid/s. Now if he was just a fence-sitter to the idea and sort-of on board that's different. He would probably be just as happy with two as with one and enjoy them, and their family life, just as much - abet with some more stress and less money :-)!

[Psychstache]

I agree with those that have stated that the OP shouldn't be dismissive of his wife's wishes and that her wanting a child isn't more or less selfish than the OP's desire for personal time

At the same time, I'm also happy to see that not too many people told the OP to just "do it for her".  His wants and needs are important, too.

I think Totoro and lizzzi are onto something in suggesting that it's worth considering forms of compromise

I agree with all these statements but I am kind of surprised that no one in this thread mentioned the possible impact on the kid/s that a "compromise" or decision to have a second child may have on those kids - just the impact on the couple and their relationship. The couple's choice will impact their relationship and that will greatly impact the kids too. Compromising, or worse just going along with the wife and having a second child, isn't like buying a car for her when he doesn't want a one. The choices the couple make (especially if it's against the will of the hubby) may potentially hurt the child/ren they have if they divorce, fight, etc... Choosing not to have a kid unless both want one seems to me the best choice because it has less ramification for harming the child/ren then choosing to have a child when you don't want one just to compromise with the DW or give in to her wishes.

+1

Having worked in education for almost a decade, it is clear that the majority of parents love their children (though there are some sad exceptions), but some parents do not LIKE their children, and those kids seem to know it. Having more than you are comfortable with seems like an easy way to resent the child, which does no one any favors.

[iris lily]

...I agree with all these statements but I am kind of surprised that no one in this thread mentioned the possible impact on the kid/s that a "compromise" or decision to have a second child may have on those kids - just the impact on the couple and their relationship. ...

I know! I was reading this thread thinking: Umm, the most important point of view hasn't even been mentioned--that of the child involved.

Every child should be wanted by both parents. The OP should guard his baby making protoplasm, he needs to be responsible in spreading it around, a little person with heart and mind can result. Being "responsible" can very much mean not using it to make babies he doesn't want, regardless if he is married.

 And his wife had better get smarter about bringing a child into the world who may not be wanted by its father.

[Meggslynn]

^^^.  As an only child myself  I would heed the words above

I say you eat shit on this one.   It's good for your current child, good for your wife and good for you since your wife is happy.    She will always regret it and may end up resenting you. 

You'll have plenty of free time when your FIRE and the kids get older....believe me.   

You plan to be FI in your early 40s!   Get a part time nanny if it helps your marriage....so you delay you're FIRE date a few years....So what?  :).

This.  I have five sons.  The ideal number of children to have is two (the number my parents had), the next best choice is zero (which lots of my friends have), the least desirable number is one in my opinion.
Once you discover that your beloved only child is a navel-gazing narcissist who thinks that he/she is a special snowflake, it'll be too late to remedy the situation.

It's simply not going to change your FIRE plans in any meaningful way since you already have one.  There's just no upside to not having another child and keeping your wife happy.  As soon as she has number 2, it's vasectomy time!

The bolded above is a ridiculous statement. This is a false stigma. Its like saying that people with mental illness are not ill but just need to get outside more.
The perfect number of children is unique to each parent. If a parent who is stretched to their limits with one is forced to have two, how great of parent is that parent now going to become. The only child, theoretically, would have been better off an only rather than with sibling. How your child turns out is from how you raise them not how many siblings they had growing up.

[fb132]

I don't have any brothers or sisters and I had a great childhood. It is not because you have 1 child that it is all doom and gloom.

[VirginiaBob]

I think having a child is personal decision and nobody should be forced to compromise on this issue.  If you only want 1, you should only have 1.  If your wife wants 2, she should have 2.  Nowhere is it written that she needs to have all of her children through her husband.  There are sperm banks and other avenues - heck, she can try match.com.

[jka468]

I think having a child is personal decision and nobody should be forced to compromise on this issue.  If you only want 1, you should only have 1.  If your wife wants 2, she should have 2.  Nowhere is it written that she needs to have all of her children through her husband.  There are sperm banks and other avenues - heck, she can try match.com.

I smirked

[blue mutant]

My experience:

DW and I have two kids. DW was exerting a lot of pressure to have a third at time when we very poor (buying tanks of gas using multiple credit cards poor), both her an I had mental health problems and there was repeated threats of divorce. I chose not to have another and it has been a continuing source of tension through the last 4-6 years. Our financial situation is much better now but the option is no longer available due to health concerns. It is extremely emotional for my wife that I "took away" her third child. I don't regret the decision I made but the decision is a continuing (unpleasant) presence in our life. I don't think "eating shit" and acquiescing is a reasonable choice and believe that veto power (as between equally interested parties) should reside in the party opposed to more children. 

[GuitarStv]

Reading some of the responses in this thread is pretty sickening.  Some points to remember:

- Kid's aren't always a blessing.  Particularly if they're unwanted.  It is the wrong choice to have an unwanted kid.
- Having a second kid isn't necessarily going to be easier.  Every kid is different.
- Having a second kid doesn't guarantee that things will be better (or worse) for the first kid.
- Being pressured into doing something you don't want to do is never alright.

OP needs to have a serious discussion with his wife about this and lay out exactly how he feels.  He needs to listen to his wife, and figure out exactly how she feels.  Then they need to decide where to go from this point together.

[sheepstache]

I interpreted the OP as saying that having the first kid as a newborn almost caused a divorce. Obviously, unless I missed something big, they still have the kid and are still married. So I think that's where the 'suck it up' responses were coming from, because having a newborn is a temporary thing.

The folks talking about the best interests of the hypothetical second child make a good point, but bear in mind the wife might leave him if he won't have a second kid which will likely be bad for kid #1, so there's not necessarily any winning scenario here.

[iris lily]

...The folks talking about the best interests of the hypothetical second child make a good point, but bear in mind the wife might leave him if he won't have a second kid which will likely be bad for kid #1, so there's not necessarily any winning scenario here.

Gosh, let's hope she's not that selfish.

[Ybserp]

Do you think the OP is ever coming back to this thread?

[justajane]

...The folks talking about the best interests of the hypothetical second child make a good point, but bear in mind the wife might leave him if he won't have a second kid which will likely be bad for kid #1, so there's not necessarily any winning scenario here.

Gosh, let's hope she's not that selfish.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why would she be selfish for making the decision that their life trajectories were different enough to warrant a divorce? Wanting a child is a deep desire for many people, deep enough to possibly (I'm not saying definitely) lead to the end of the marriage.

Would you be okay with the divorce if they were deciding between zero or one kid?

I'm guessing the OP isn't coming back at this point, but the discussion has been interesting nonetheless and someone else might benefit from it down the line.

[hybrid]

...The folks talking about the best interests of the hypothetical second child make a good point, but bear in mind the wife might leave him if he won't have a second kid which will likely be bad for kid #1, so there's not necessarily any winning scenario here.

Gosh, let's hope she's not that selfish.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why would she be selfish for making the decision that their life trajectories were different enough to warrant a divorce? Wanting a child is a deep desire for many people, deep enough to possibly (I'm not saying definitely) lead to the end of the marriage.

Would you be okay with the divorce if they were deciding between zero or one kid?

I'm guessing the OP isn't coming back at this point, but the discussion has been interesting nonetheless and someone else might benefit from it down the line.

My bold. Because she is not making that choice in a vacuum. There is already the first child to consider. If a couple are married and have no kids and the desire to have kids is an unfortunate deal breaker, then sadly the two go their separate ways.

Not so with three. Is it right for a spouse to disrupt the existing family dynamic just because she really wants another child? We all want something folks. This seems like the height of selfishness to me, and not at all fair to the first child. Tell me how that conversation is supposed to go exactly? Mommy and Daddy are living in separate houses now because Mommy really wants you to have a baby brother/sister. Oh good grief.

[sheepstache]

I agree that divorce is not good for kids and to be avoided. But people are suggesting that the stress of having an unwanted second child could lead to divorce. I'm saying the stress of not having the second child might result in divorce as well. Not suggesting the mom would get a divorce out of spite.

[CommonCents]

I've just skimmed the thread, but I'm astonished by how much people are throwing around the label of WHO is selfish, as if that is critical or somehow relevant to this question/issue.

Dear OP, it makes no difference what a random board of internet people think.  Labeling either her or you as selfish will not get you any closer to a resolution so I suggest you avoid wasting any time on it.  You both have wants and therefore can be seen as "selfish" in this scenario. 

Talk to each other.  Go to counseling.  Figure out why you both feel the way that you do, so you at the minimum understand the other's perspective fully.  Hopefully you can reach a consensus by then.

[justajane]

Sorry, but I'm still stuck on this idea that the person who doesn't want another child always "wins."

Besides, isn't there always the question of degree? Some might be absolutely opposed, others might have doubts. In all of these cases, you all are saying that the person who wants another child just needs to let it go?

[cavewoman]

Anyone else think it's weird when someone posts a question like this that generates a lot of response but then doesn't respond to any of the answers?

[Beric01]

Anyone else think it's weird when someone posts a question like this that generates a lot of response but then doesn't respond to any of the answers?

Think it might be related to this?

I'm astonished by how much people are throwing around the label of WHO is selfish, as if that is critical or somehow relevant to this question/issue.

[farmstache]

I don't see how divorce is such a bad thing. Yes, it's hard for everyone involved and for a while, but nowadays much more common and aside from possible expenses, I fail to see how this would ruin a kid's life?

Depending on how deep the pull is, I might consider divorce myself if I come to this situation and as a couple we can't communicate properly or work things out to both people's content.

[iris lily]

Sorry, but I'm still stuck on this idea that the person who doesn't want another child always "wins."

Because each child born deserves to have two parents fully on board to welcome them into the world, ready to selflessly devote sleepless nights, and etc to taking care of them. It's not about what the parents want, it's about the child.

Besides, isn't there always the question of degree? Some might be absolutely opposed, others might have doubts. In all of these cases, you all are saying that the person who wants another child just needs to let it go?

Yes, that issue of degree is important and can make a difference in outcome. That's why real communication, and possibly compromise, IS important and possible. Compromise could be:

1) I really want a baaaaaabeeeeeeee and DH hates the idea. Therefore I will compromise on this issue by volunteering in the Crises Nurseury, or will take my sister's toddlers for weekends, or etc etc where I get to handle lots of little kids and baabeees

2) I really do not want another baaabeeee, hate the puking and diapers and sleepless nights. But I like children after they are age 3 and would like to add another little soul to our family. So could we consider adoption of an older child?

See, these are examples of compromises.

[Pigeon]

Taking care of somebody else's kid isn't anything like having your own. If anything, it often makes women who long for a baby hurt more.  Adoption is a way to form a family that should never be seen as a compromise. It just isn't and no social worker would place a child with a parent who was honest about that. Those are pretty bad examples that if anything just show that this is not a situation where a compromise is possible.

[VirginiaBob]

I don't see how divorce is such a bad thing. Yes, it's hard for everyone involved and for a while, but nowadays much more common and aside from possible expenses, I fail to see how this would ruin a kid's life?

Depending on how deep the pull is, I might consider divorce myself if I come to this situation and as a couple we can't communicate properly or work things out to both people's content.

Agreed, if you haven't been divorced twice, you haven't really lived.

[iris lily]

Taking care of somebody else's kid isn't anything like having your own. If anything, it often makes women who long for a baby hurt more.  Adoption is a way to form a family that should never be seen as a compromise. It just isn't and no social worker would place a child with a parent who was honest about that. Those are pretty bad examples that if anything just show that this is not a situation where a compromise is possible.

You are probably right about this, there is no REAL compromise, just kinda/sorta compromise on small points. But I think it's perfectly valid to say: I can't do more infant care, I'd like to have a 5 year old, thought.

I have had a lot of rescue dogs through my house and I say upfront: I don't want a puppy, don't especially like 'em, am not charmed by them. I love adult dogs, so let me go with that.

[farmstache]

Sorry, but I'm still stuck on this idea that the person who doesn't want another child always "wins."

Because each child born deserves to have two parents fully on board to welcome them into the world, ready to selflessly devote sleepless nights, and etc to taking care of them. It's not about what the parents want, it's about the child.

Iris, I usually love your pieces of wisdom (and love the name, it's a top pic for my kid if it's a girl!), but I really must disagree with this.

I don't think being a single parent is selfish. I also don't think a kid *needs* two parents. I do agree that having an unwilling parent is bad, and the child can feel it.

But from the point of view of someone who always knew I wanted to be a Mom, but never felt any greater calling to being a spouse, I don't feel the slightest guilt from the time I decided I'd "self reproduce" if I couldn't find my match. Thankfully I did find him, because I think the trip is nicer when shared... but I studied and read a lot about parenting to admittedly confirm my bias that being a single parent doesn't cause lifetime trauma in anyone. The problem are usually the circumstances around that (alcohol, bitter divorce, unstable home, family feuds, etc).

[sheepstache]

If I were the OP's wife, I'd want to know more specifically what his concerns about the second kid are. I understand some people just don't like kids, but if you already have one, it seems like the antagonism towards having a second might have to do with how the first one is currently affecting your life.

He mentions valuing his time alone. Is he failing to get enough time alone now and if so is that fixable?

Does he not like the noise and clutter around the house?

Does he not feel like he has enough adult time with the wife?

Is it the cost and if so are they spending too much on the first kid? And are there disagreements between the partners about this?

I know there's a limit to how much control parents have, but I know some parents who dislike having kids because they've ceded all control and don't voice their concerns to their partner, so their partner just creates routines and an atmosphere without their input.  That's the danger of distancing yourself because you 'don't like kids' is you like it even less than if you were more actively engaged. The partner may be oblivious or insensitive and not realize what an effect it's having.
Obviously I don't know if that's the case here, but since no specific issues were mentioned I do wonder.

[iris lily]

Iris, I usually love your pieces of wisdom (and love the name, it's a top pic for my kid if it's a girl!), but I really must disagree with this.

I don't think being a single parent is selfish. I also don't think a kid *needs* two parents. I do agree that having an unwilling parent is bad, and the child can feel it.

But from the point of view of someone who always knew I wanted to be a Mom, but never felt any greater calling to being a spouse, I don't feel the slightest guilt from the time I decided I'd "self reproduce" if I couldn't find my match. Thankfully I did find him, because I think the trip is nicer when shared... but I studied and read a lot about parenting to admittedly confirm my bias that being a single parent doesn't cause lifetime trauma in anyone. The problem are usually the circumstances around that (alcohol, bitter divorce, unstable home, family feuds, etc).

Well, I'll derail this to Unpopular Land and say that I think children benefit from males and females as parents,  but that will go no where so just shoot me now.

To get back on track, I won't quite disagree with you because I think children deserve parent(s) who want them. If a kid ends up with one parent, so be it, I can't do anything about that. But I think it's a special kind of cruel to have to grow up in a household with daddy-o who didn't want you. Every day there's a hulk of a man there, resenting you. What a nasty legacy to lay on a child.

And in this day and age of birth control I can't understand why it continues to happen. The stories of dads (and mothers, to be honest) from decades and centuries ago who didn't want  their passel of kids but couldn't practically do much to stop it? Now we can. And we don't. Margaret Sanger would NOT be proud.

I have to ask you if you read the study done on prison population that showed that the single most important factor of their status was: no father in the home. I can't remember if this study was limited to black men or all men, but it claimed to show that social-economic status didn't matter so much as presence of father in the home.

[/quote]

[farmstache]

I have to ask you if you read the study done on prison population that showed that the single most important factor of their status was: no father in the home. I can't remember if this study was limited to black men or all men, but it claimed to show that social-economic status didn't matter so much as presence of father in the home.

Nope, never read that. I'll try to find it, sounds very interesting.

Yet I would try to figure out what exactly the father figure represents inside a home. For instance: why would it be more defining of wrong choices than the lack of a mother figure? Or maybe there simply weren't enough motherless homes to get data from? What about the presence of a grandfather or an uncle? What exactly is a father and what does he bring to the table that a mother can't bring? Is it because he's male or just an extra parent? What about same-sex couples? There's lots of theories about that, all a bit controversial, and I must admit I had a good time reading about them and a long time to think about strategies I'd have to develop to fulfil some of those needs.

[kyanamerinas]

[quote name="iris lily" post=424669 timestamp=1413326765]<br />[quote name="justajane" post=424579 timestamp=1413320295]<br />Sorry, but I'm still stuck on this idea that the person who doesn't want another child always "wins."[/quote]<br /><br />Because each child born deserves to have two parents fully on board to welcome them into the world, ready to selflessly devote sleepless nights, and etc to taking care of them. It's not about what the parents want, it's about the child.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Iris, I usually love your pieces of wisdom (and love the name, it's a top pic for my kid if it's a girl!), but I really must disagree with this.<br /><br />I don't think being a single parent is selfish. I also don't think a kid *needs* two parents. I do agree that having an unwilling parent is bad, and the child can feel it. <br /><br />But from the point of view of someone who always knew I wanted to be a Mom, but never felt any greater calling to being a spouse, I don't feel the slightest guilt from the time I decided I'd "self reproduce" if I couldn't find my match. Thankfully I did find him, because I think the trip is nicer when shared... but I studied and read a lot about parenting to admittedly confirm my bias that being a single parent doesn't cause lifetime trauma in anyone. The problem are usually the circumstances around that (alcohol, bitter divorce, unstable home, family feuds, etc).<br/>

I don't think she was saying a single parent is bad. I think in the context of this post she meant that having two parents and one not on board is bad. I.e., however many parents a child has, they must all be on board for the child to do as well as possible.

[Spartana]

I don't think she was saying a single parent is bad. I think in the context of this post she meant that having two parents and one not on board is bad. I.e., however many parents a child has, they must all be on board for the child to do as well as possible.

I agree. I think she meant that when choosing to have a child, the people involved (whether a single parent or a couple or something else) should put the best interest of that unborn child first and their own personal desires second. If they (a single parent to be or one part of a couple) aren't having that child for the right reasons (i.e. because they want one and want to raise and love one and will happily make any needed personal sacrifices to make that child's life as good as it can be) and may not really want that child, then they probably shouldn't have it.

[former player]

A minimum of two committed parent-figures (of any combination) is preferable to one: for support, for economies of time and money, for energy and attention given to the child.  Sure, one alone can do it but if anything goes wrong with the one (illness, disability, death, unemployment, homelessness), there needs to be a damn good back-up which is not the child going into state care: along with no father-figure, state care is a great predictor of prison time. 

I had a mother who was the fourth girl of four to parents who wanted a boy, and the results have made her life and mine a lot more difficult than they needed to be.  To be the child of a parent who didn't want you from the start seems likely to be worse.

Raising children is hard, y'all.

[VirginiaBob]

I don't think she was saying a single parent is bad. I think in the context of this post she meant that having two parents and one not on board is bad. I.e., however many parents a child has, they must all be on board for the child to do as well as possible.

I agree. I think she meant that when choosing to have a child, the people involved (whether a single parent or a couple or something else) should put the best interest of that unborn child first and their own personal desires second. If they (a single parent to be or one part of a couple) aren't having that child for the right reasons (i.e. because they want one and want to raise and love one and will happily make any needed personal sacrifices to make that child's life as good as it can be) and may not really want that child, then they probably shouldn't have it.

The best interests of the child?  What is this, fantasy land?  Most people that I know that have children do so for vanity reasons.  Creating more mini-me's.  It is neat being able to expand the family stickers on the back of our mini-vans.  Whether 1 or 2 parents, this is typically the case.

[jka468]

I almost can't comprehend some of these responses and the logic behind them. I sure could say a lot, but I'll refrain.

I don't think she was saying a single parent is bad. I think in the context of this post she meant that having two parents and one not on board is bad. I.e., however many parents a child has, they must all be on board for the child to do as well as possible.

I agree. I think she meant that when choosing to have a child, the people involved (whether a single parent or a couple or something else) should put the best interest of that unborn child first and their own personal desires second. If they (a single parent to be or one part of a couple) aren't having that child for the right reasons (i.e. because they want one and want to raise and love one and will happily make any needed personal sacrifices to make that child's life as good as it can be) and may not really want that child, then they probably shouldn't have it.

The best interests of the child?  What is this, fantasy land?  Most people that I know that have children do so for vanity reasons.  Creating more mini-me's.  It is neat being able to expand the family stickers on the back of our mini-vans.  Whether 1 or 2 parents, this is typically the case.

Too much logic here man. Don't even put in the effort.

[shelivesthedream]

I have to ask you if you read the study done on prison population that showed that the single most important factor of their status was: no father in the home. I can't remember if this study was limited to black men or all men, but it claimed to show that social-economic status didn't matter so much as presence of father in the home.

Nope, never read that. I'll try to find it, sounds very interesting.

Yet I would try to figure out what exactly the father figure represents inside a home. For instance: why would it be more defining of wrong choices than the lack of a mother figure? Or maybe there simply weren't enough motherless homes to get data from? What about the presence of a grandfather or an uncle? What exactly is a father and what does he bring to the table that a mother can't bring? Is it because he's male or just an extra parent? What about same-sex couples? There's lots of theories about that, all a bit controversial, and I must admit I had a good time reading about them and a long time to think about strategies I'd have to develop to fulfil some of those needs.

I read this, although again cannot remember where. I am pretty sure it was just black men, and I imagine there are several reasons that mean fatherless is more important than anything else (sorry, I can feel the foam gathering but this is something I find very interesting, so I'll keep it short):

- The mother usually gets custody, so there are too few motherless homes to have a statistical impact.
- Everyone had a father once. To not have one now means that he did not want you. It is not the same feeling of loss for, say, an uncle.
- Single parenthood is very difficult because you never get any time off. Having another adult around the house helps a lot.
- I do think that the way you model yourself as a child and teen (whether positively or negatively) is most influenced by the parent who is the same gender as you. Society tells different things to boys and girls so you need a man or woman to figure out what it is that you as a man or woman should be like. In a home without a father, you will find someone else to be your male adult role model, who may be a bad influence. However, I believe that this can be mitigated by an alternative strong male influence (like the aforementioned uncle).

[Spartana]

I have to ask you if you read the study done on prison population that showed that the single most important factor of their status was: no father in the home. I can't remember if this study was limited to black men or all men, but it claimed to show that social-economic status didn't matter so much as presence of father in the home.

Nope, never read that. I'll try to find it, sounds very interesting.

Yet I would try to figure out what exactly the father figure represents inside a home. For instance: why would it be more defining of wrong choices than the lack of a mother figure? Or maybe there simply weren't enough motherless homes to get data from? What about the presence of a grandfather or an uncle? What exactly is a father and what does he bring to the table that a mother can't bring? Is it because he's male or just an extra parent? What about same-sex couples? There's lots of theories about that, all a bit controversial, and I must admit I had a good time reading about them and a long time to think about strategies I'd have to develop to fulfil some of those needs.

I read this, although again cannot remember where. I am pretty sure it was just black men, and I imagine there are several reasons that mean fatherless is more important than anything else (sorry, I can feel the foam gathering but this is something I find very interesting, so I'll keep it short):

 
- I do think that the way you model yourself as a child and teen (whether positively or negatively) is most influenced by the parent who is the same gender as you. Society tells different things to boys and girls so you need a man or woman to figure out what it is that you as a man or woman should be like. In a home without a father, you will find someone else to be your male adult role model, who may be a bad influence. However, I believe that this can be mitigated by an alternative strong male influence (like the aforementioned uncle).

You're assuming that a parent of a certain gender is following traditional gender roles and that may not be the case. What if Mom is an ex-military sharpshooter who's into firearms and target shooting? What if she races and rides motorcycles and plays team sports in her off time? What if she's a mechanic or police officer or fire fighter? Same for Dad - what if he doesn't do traditionally "male" things? What if he cooks and cleans and does the laundry? What if he works and has hobbies that have been labeled as things more traditionally "female" than male? Would there still be a need for a male or female influence for the children? Other than the extra support, care, and love children receive in a 2 parent household, I can't see any reason why a single parent of either gender can't be a great influence on the kids of either gender. Just my 2 cents. 

[Spartana]

I've just skimmed the thread, but I'm astonished by how much people are throwing around the label of WHO is selfish, as if that is critical or somehow relevant to this question/issue.

 

Ha Ha - this was what my Mom said to me when I said I didn't want kids. "You are being selfish Spartana because I want grandkids!" I wonder if the responses on this thread to "just give in to your wife and have another kid" would be the same if it was someone saying their parents wanted them to have kids or a second kid even if they didn't want one themselves. Probably not :-)!

[shelivesthedream]

I have to ask you if you read the study done on prison population that showed that the single most important factor of their status was: no father in the home. I can't remember if this study was limited to black men or all men, but it claimed to show that social-economic status didn't matter so much as presence of father in the home.

Nope, never read that. I'll try to find it, sounds very interesting.

Yet I would try to figure out what exactly the father figure represents inside a home. For instance: why would it be more defining of wrong choices than the lack of a mother figure? Or maybe there simply weren't enough motherless homes to get data from? What about the presence of a grandfather or an uncle? What exactly is a father and what does he bring to the table that a mother can't bring? Is it because he's male or just an extra parent? What about same-sex couples? There's lots of theories about that, all a bit controversial, and I must admit I had a good time reading about them and a long time to think about strategies I'd have to develop to fulfil some of those needs.

I read this, although again cannot remember where. I am pretty sure it was just black men, and I imagine there are several reasons that mean fatherless is more important than anything else (sorry, I can feel the foam gathering but this is something I find very interesting, so I'll keep it short):

 
- I do think that the way you model yourself as a child and teen (whether positively or negatively) is most influenced by the parent who is the same gender as you. Society tells different things to boys and girls so you need a man or woman to figure out what it is that you as a man or woman should be like. In a home without a father, you will find someone else to be your male adult role model, who may be a bad influence. However, I believe that this can be mitigated by an alternative strong male influence (like the aforementioned uncle).

You're assuming that a parent of a certain gender is following traditional gender roles and that may not be the case. What if Mom is an ex-military sharpshooter who's into firearms and target shooting? What if she races and rides motorcycles and plays team sports in her off time? What if she's a mechanic or police officer or fire fighter? Same for Dad - what if he doesn't do traditionally "male" things? What if he cooks and cleans and does the laundry? What if he works and has hobbies that have been labeled as things more traditionally "female" than male? Would there still be a need for a male or female influence for the children? Other than the extra support, care, and love children receive in a 2 parent household, I can't see any reason why a single parent of either gender can't be a great influence on the kids of either gender. Just my 2 cents.

Apologies - perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear, but that was sort of what I was trying to imply: that wider society tells you a man/woman must like football/do housework and then you look at what your own parents do to figure out whether that is true or not. A single parent can be a fantastic (or terrible!) influence on all of their children but I do believe that at some point a child or teen will then look for a role model somewhere outside that environment. I do not intend to deny the fact that parents of both genders parent children of both genders, but children are natural copycats, so they need someone to demonstrate adulthood for them.

[Cressida]

I almost can't comprehend some of these responses and the logic behind them. I sure could say a lot, but I'll refrain.

[snort] Yeah, that is your MO, jka, isn't it. "I have great arguments but I refuse to share them." Compelling.

OP, if you don't want more children, say so. And take measures to ensure it doesn't happen without your consent. You're allowed to express your opinion, you know. Whatever ends up happening, it will be a compromise of some sort, so it makes sense to stake out your position honestly and go from there. Start with a hard line, or else you're giving up ground from the get-go in your negotiations. You might well end up with a second child, but if so, it's important for everyone involved to understand who is sacrificing what.

[projekt]

Fun fact: OP posted this question and disappeared, hasn't been active since.

[hybrid]

Fun fact: OP posted this question and disappeared, hasn't been active since.

Now that's funny....

My mother was a widow at an early age, and raised her two kids (6 and 5) pretty much single-handedly. If MMM is all about optimization, let's go here then. Sure, people can raise their kids in a single parent household and everything may go perfectly well, but I will offer, as have others, that it is far from optimum (and it is freaking hard). DW and I have raised two kids now, and our two kids had FAR more advantages than my brother and I did growing up, and it was also freaking hard at times. I will always be grateful there were two of us in the process, I would have sucked single-handed.

This is not an attack on single parenthood. This is simply an observation that pooling of resources clearly and obviously offers many advantages, all other things being equal. Parents don't have the same skills set, Mom may be great at A, B, and C, while Dad may be great at D, E, and F. A single parent is going to be sick, overwhelmed at work, something. I know, I experienced this early and often. My mother did a good-not-great job because she was overburdened by the task, and it exacted a toll on her. She did her very best under less than ideal circumstances. There are a great many people like my mother. Many of them won't do their very best.

I think this is the point the two-parent proponents are trying to make sometimes, and often inelegantly. I hope the single parent proponents can see past the inelegance and understand the logic behind the argument, at the end of the day it is really just simple math.   

[golden1]

Wow..this turned into a shit storm.

If the OP is still reading, I can relate my perspectives. 

I have two children, my DH was on board with two children, and I had always said I wanted 2 or 3 children.  Once two was born, I wanted a third almost immediately and my DH was on the fence, but he was very respectful about it.  He never said "No", but just expressed his concerns, financial and emotional, against having a third.  Once my DS was 2, I knew I needed to make a decision one way or the other if I ever wanted to have a shot at returning to work.  I had a moment of clarity that year during a vacation where I kind of pulled back and saw our family, and its special dynamic from the outside, and I realized that I didn't need a third child, that my family was perfect just the way it was.  I told my husband that I was okay with being done, and I have never really regretted that decision.  My son has special needs (ASD) and I think bringing a third child into that would have been very stressful. 

I guess I wanted to relate my story just to say two things:

1) The desire to have a child can change with time.  It is not a fixed urge necessarily. 
2) If my DH had been more antagonistic, I would have been a lot more resentful.  Him giving me the space and respect to help me come to a decision on my own means I have no resentment at all.  I honestly think that if I had REALLY wanted that child more, he would have opened himself up to the idea. 
3) People get attached to the idea of a family size without necessarily understanding the long term implications. 

[Cressida]

2) If my DH had been more antagonistic, I would have been a lot more resentful.  Him giving me the space and respect to help me come to a decision on my own means I have no resentment at all.

This is a good point and leads me to clarify something I said above. When I suggested "taking a hard line," I didn't mean, "be obnoxious about it." Best to be respectful, but clear.

[kathrynd]

Happy wife, happy life.  None of this FIRE stuff means anything if your relationship with your wife is not right. Sounds like you are on the path to divorce unless you start respecting her needs.

You are probably headed for divorce.
The desire for another child is very strong.
She is probably debating in her head, if you are worth giving up her dream of another baby.

[wtjbatman]

Happy wife, happy life.  None of this FIRE stuff means anything if your relationship with your wife is not right. Sounds like you are on the path to divorce unless you start respecting her needs.

You are probably headed for divorce.
The desire for another child is very strong.
She is probably debating in her head, if you are worth giving up her dream of another baby.

Since this thread is two and a half months old, one wonders if the OP's wife is pregnant yet.

[iwasjustwondering]

2 kids is a lot harder than 1, that is for sure.  I think you two need to talk more about it, maybe she doesn't understand why you only want one.

no way; #2, 3 etc are WAY easier than #1. You've done it before, nothing new here, improve & move on.

Buck up OP and do the right thing.

ITA with the idea that #2 is easier than #1.  In fact I would go farther and say that having two kids is much easier than having one. 

[Pigeon]

Did anyone fully read the OP's post?

[W]e nearly ended up in divorce when the first one arrived. Being an INTJ, I value my own time - which I have precious little of with one kid.

And the advice is to just "buck up" and "have another!"?!? OP, if you want to avoid posting in the "WMFD" thread in a few years, talk with your wife and/or go to counseling.

Also, OP, what's with the "late twenties; early thirties" for your wife's age? Do you not know how old she is?

I am also shocked by some of the answers the OP has been getting. In a way, they are characteristic of the societal beainwashing we are all victims of : "Just breed without thinking of the consequences or your own desires".

My advice will seem cynical to some and realistic to others : get a vasectomy. And look up the term "oopsed". Seriously.

My experience of marriage taught me that there things you cannot compromise about, and the children question is one of them. There is nothing more soul destroying than having someone who doesn't share the same values as life partner. And there are billions of people on the planet. Trying to fix something that never really worked can consume one's life. Really consider ALL options open to you before making a life-altering decision. Good luck to you.

Getting a vasectomy without discussing it with a partner who really wants a kid is a crappy thing to do. Your body, your choice, but be upfront about it because she should be able to weigh the pros and cons of staying in the relationship as this may be a deal breaker for her.

[Skyhigh]

I feel like I should not have another kid if I don’t want to. I just don’t want to experience the stress of raising a newborn again - we nearly ended up in divorce when the first one arrived. Being an INTJ, I value my own time - which I have precious little of with one kid.

It turned my stomach that people read this text and told this guy to "Buck up" and stop being selfish. "give the gift of siblings." Eug. Barf.

Do you people not realize that he's already struggling to enjoy the first one? You really think that shovelling more kids onto the pile is going to make his life better?

Two is not perfect the number. For the OP, I'm guessing zero was the perfect number, but he's got one now. He clearly needs to be able to focus on enjoying the child he has and on keeping his marriage strong.

Kids don't fix marital problems - they amplify them. No, sorry, folks, but all his problems will NOT go away if he just breeds some more.

Perhaps the OP should start budgeting for the divorce now? A lot of spouses don't want kids however if you are going to be married it is usually a big part of the deal. To leave a spouse without the ability to accomplish a major life purpose is a potential deal buster.