If you had two under two...

[Anonymous]

We didn't have a third because we didn't even plan to have the second. There was no way in hell there was going to be a third.

[Anonymous]

Third is due in November. DD turned 4 in September, DS turned 2 in July.

Traumatic seems like a very intense word. We waffled on #3 but not really cause having two was hard. More money and resources.

Went for it because my pregnancies are completely god awful and if I waited I never would have done it.

[Anonymous]

I had triplets and then another one 20 months later, so we had four under two.

[Anonymous]

Difficult and stressful, but not traumatic. Never had a third because we never planned to — always had felt like two kids was what I wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you go on to have a third? Or was that traumatic enough

traumatic? You chose this.

Sometimes people choose things and they don’t work out as expected, through no fault of their own.

OP, I had 2 that were almost 2.5 years apart. We tried again for a 3rd with similar spacing, but ran into infertility issues. Eventually we wound up having unplanned twins when the older kids were 9 and 11.5.

[Anonymous]

We stopped at two but that was always the plan.

[Anonymous]

I thought having two under two was traumatic (#2 was the result of birth control failure) although my particular circumstances likely made it more so - deployed spouse, older child developed significant health issues as soon as spouse went overseas, baby had weight gain and feeding issues, no nearby family. It was traumatizing to deal with all that on my own under the psychosis of sleep deprivation. I am never going through that again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you go on to have a third? Or was that traumatic enough

traumatic? You chose this.

OP- actually I am unexpectedly pregnant after being told we had a ZERO percent chance of getting pregnant without IVF. First baby took years and $$$$$ so we're very pleasantly surprised! Also, stfu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had triplets and then another one 20 months later, so we had four under two.

OMG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had triplets and then another one 20 months later, so we had four under two.

OMG

I have twin infants now and would love another set of twins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you go on to have a third? Or was that traumatic enough

traumatic? You chose this.

OP- actually I am unexpectedly pregnant after being told we had a ZERO percent chance of getting pregnant without IVF. First baby took years and $$$$$ so we're very pleasantly surprised! Also, stfu.

Congrats, OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Went on for a third. Had three just under four.

But I have been blessed with a great deal of outside help - both paid and family support. I couldn’t have done it alone.

Same.

I will say though that 2 under 2 was really easy for me because my second baby was one of those unicorn babies who STTN early on and wasn't fussy. I could take him to Little Gym with my eldest and he was content to watch from his car seat.

My third was a normal baby who fussed occasionally and I did need help with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you go on to have a third? Or was that traumatic enough

traumatic? You chose this.

OP- actually I am unexpectedly pregnant after being told we had a ZERO percent chance of getting pregnant without IVF. First baby took years and $$$$$ so we're very pleasantly surprised! Also, stfu.

Congrats, OP! We loved the age Gap enough that we did the same age Gap again, so that the older two were 3.5 and 21 months when #3 was born. Still love this age Gap, but if we have a fourth I think we will aim for a 2.5 year gap to give my body more time to recover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you go on to have a third? Or was that traumatic enough

traumatic? You chose this.

You know what? A lot of people didn’t. And you sound like a jerk saying this.