I want a third...but am more nervous than ever about health problems..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... even if your 1st child's condition is not hereditary there is always a chance to end up having two special needs children. It is by no means the end of the world, for me it has taught me so much about humans and about myself. (I was the most impatient person, at times ignorant and intolerant, which I am now ashamed of but happy that they taught me to be more embracing) My children love me very much even if they can't always show me that and even if at times they seem unhappy, and I am thankful for that. But as one PP noted, it does take its toll on a relationship, financial stability and it is very demanding to juggle two.

It really is a personal decision in the end.

This really struck a chord with me. I could have written it. I had my first at age 37 and my third at age 40. I had CVSs with all three and everything looked good. We didn't find out our youngest was SN until he was 15 months and if you'd asked me back then, I would have just said he was delayed - which is all that it appeared to be. What we learned made us take a secodn look at our oldest, we had him evaluated and he, too, is considered SN. On the special needs spectrum, they're on the very mild side - ADHD and SPD but looking at them, 99% of lay people would have no idea. We can tell, painfully so.

Like the PP above, I've changed a lot. I wouldn't wish this on anyone but I'm such a better person for it. It's also taken a toll on relationships, finances and me personally. If I had it to do over again, I honestly don't know what I'd do. I would definitely say yes to the first two, I don't know about the third. Our third was definitely an 'oops!'. In some ways, though, I've enjoyed him the most. With his delays, I've really been able to enjoy the younger stages a lot more and it's immensely gratifying to see how close the kids are. I guess I'm glad that we didn't know about any of these issues until after we had them all or I, too, would be agonizing and worrying. I feel for you, OP, and everyone else who's in this position. I'm also really heartened by the support and encouraging responses folksa are posting.

[Anonymous]

I think it is important for every family, with SN or not, to evaluate WHY
they want more kids. Sometimes it is for purely selfish reasons (ie,
I want someone to love, I love babies, maybe I would do better this time), and I
don't think that is a good enough reason. I think families with SN need
to take into account what the impact will be on the typical children in the
family. Is the SN severe enough that when the parents die it will forever
be the sibs responsibity to care for their SN sib? No one likes to think
about something like that, but it is a sad fact of life for some families, and
denying it doesn't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is important for every family, with SN or not, to evaluate WHY
they want more kids. Sometimes it is for purely selfish reasons (ie,
I want someone to love, I love babies, maybe I would do better this time), and I
don't think that is a good enough reason. I think families with SN need
to take into account what the impact will be on the typical children in the
family. Is the SN severe enough that when the parents die it will forever
be the sibs responsibity to care for their SN sib? No one likes to think
about something like that, but it is a sad fact of life for some families, and
denying it doesn't help.

This is really ridiculous. Why does anyone have kids. Does anyone need to have kids? And does anyone have them for a practical reason? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is important for every family, with SN or not, to evaluate WHY
they want more kids. Sometimes it is for purely selfish reasons (ie,
I want someone to love, I love babies, maybe I would do better this time), and I
don't think that is a good enough reason. I think families with SN need
to take into account what the impact will be on the typical children in the
family. Is the SN severe enough that when the parents die it will forever
be the sibs responsibity to care for their SN sib? No one likes to think
about something like that, but it is a sad fact of life for some families, and
denying it doesn't help.

This is really ridiculous. Why does anyone have kids. Does anyone need to have kids? And does anyone have them for a practical reason? No.

Excellent point PP. That post bugged me when I read it too. This is DC Urban Moms, so I think it's safe to assume we're not farmers who NEED to have children to help work the land.

With that in mind, it's pretty insulting to tell SN families we need to consider that we're having our children for "selfish reasons." As opposed to what? The altruistic reasons that families without special needs are having children? Give me a break! Having children is on some level a supremely selfish act. & RAISING children is - on another level - a supremely SELFLESS act. I have 3 children: 1 with special needs and 2 without. I love all of them and I have high expectations of bright futures for all of them. I had them because my husband and I love each other and wanted in some deep primal way to have babies and raise them together. Maybe that's selfish. Now that we have them, we love them more than our own lives and have organized our lives around them. On a very real level our lives are in service to theirs, selflessly. And we're not special - I'm willing to bet the vast majority of parents who read this board are no less dedicated than we are.

The idea that parents of SN children need to be instructed to "evaluate WHY they want more kids" would be insulting - if it weren't so f*cking stupid that it doesn't actually merit a response.

I just really feel like saying it to you, 02/18/2010 13:38: F*ck right off.

[Anonymous]

I am one of the PPs with two special needs kids. I don't think the aforementioned PP has kids with special needs. I got pregnant with #2 before I knew that #1 would have such pervasive issues. And we thought #2 was just fine until she was 18 months. There was NO reason whatsoever to assume otherwise.

Yes, in theory I often wonder if I should have stopped at one child. The reality of the matter is that I have these two children, and they both have issues, and they both need lots and lots of intervention. Retracing my steps won't do nothing but to make me wonder why it is so hard in this world to raise these two existing children. I had a hard time enjoying my pregnancy with #2, in fact I never did, because I worried myself sick over the possibility that she may end up having the same issues as #1.

I don't think anyone can ever relate to what it is like to have special needs kids, unless you have one of your own. To the PP with the attitude that one would have children out of selfish reasons, believe me, once these children are into this world, you enter a whole new universe of obstacles. It's about survival. Nobody ever delivers a child assuming that they will be anything but healthy unless there are obvious reasons. And once you find yourself in this surreal world of having more than one child that needs extensive help to maneuver this world you simply don't get to indulge in the "what ifs". It is what it is.

I will never have a third child unless the most effective birth control method fails me. And if that ever happens, it is what it is. I have spent the last 5 years thinking about nothing but my kids, nothing selfish at all.

Rationalize all you want to, but in the end you just don't know what you will get after you give birth to a child. I know this now that I have had these two children. And I would have never dreamed in my life that this could happen to me, given that I didn't fall into any risk category.

It's never just black and white and it is an individual choice. But even when you make that choice you don't get to control everything, but that's okay. Most of us manage even with our special needs children, because once we get to that point of no return, we simply adapt. Unlike people who watch us from the outside judging us every day.