Third child: just not sure!

[Anonymous]

For us comes down to pure finances. I don't know how anyone can afford 3 kids in this part of the country...but I come from a large family - 5 siblings, and it is fabulous. IF you can do it, the love that stems from it is great !! But know your limits, financially and emotionally.
Good luck with your decision...i am a little envious as we'd love 3 but cannot afford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree: you will not regret another child. But some day, you might regret that you didn't have one more.

This is hilarious. How can you possibly know that?

There is no possible way to know this for sure, of course. But based on what my grandmother and other older women have told me, I believe this is true for myself.

[Anonymous]

My mom told me that if yo wait to have a child or another child until you have enough money or time, you will never do either and I agree that once you have a child there are just no regrets when you see that little person. On the subject of middle child, I was one and I loved it since I felt like I had the best of both worlds. Middle child syndrome just like baby spacing is just about individual family dynamics--we were all raised to love each other and be together and we were all fine. I think if you don't feel done then you aren't--you will know when you are done. Currently I am pregnant with my last and I know it and feel closure that this child will complete our family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My mom told me that if yo wait to have a child or another child until you have enough money or time, you will never do either and I agree that once you have a child there are just no regrets when you see that little person. On the subject of middle child, I was one and I loved it since I felt like I had the best of both worlds. Middle child syndrome just like baby spacing is just about individual family dynamics--we were all raised to love each other and be together and we were all fine. I think if you don't feel done then you aren't--you will know when you are done. Currently I am pregnant with my last and I know it and feel closure that this child will complete our family.

OP here. Thank you

[Anonymous]

To those of you contemplating - or already have - a third, did you ever consider the environmental impacts of an additional person? I can't get around it. I'd love another, but it just seems selfish to me. And, does anyone else feel three is an awkward number?

[Anonymous]

Regarding the impact of additional humans on the planet: I think anyone arguing this point must take into account the positive impact, as well as the negative. Folks on boards like this one are the types to think about how to raise GOOD kids, good global citizens, and kind, generous people. That's why they're here, talking about it. Because they care.

And so, we can hope that the OP's third child will have a net positive impact on the world, rather than just be a drain on society.

There's a pretty terrible movie that came out a few years ago, with an absolutely brilliant (but un-PC) intro. It shows an educated, affluent couple talking about their decision to have kids. At first, they're putting it off because they want to travel and establish their careers. Then, they say that it would be irresponsible, given the state of the stock market. Then, they're ready, but they're older and having fertility troubles. Then the husband dies at 45, and the widow is talking about going ahead, "fingers crossed" with her frozen eggs. Meanwhile, there's a low-income, uneducated group of people who are procreating like crazy, saying stuff like, "Aw, damnit! I'm pregnant again!" The movie itself is about some future America where no one has an IQ over 80, because only the dumb, irresponsible people had children, and the whole society is on the brink of starvation because no one is smart enough to manage the economy. Again, it's seriously un-PC, but for all that, a reasonable mental exercise.

All this to say, people who love children should have children. They will raise them to be good people, and an asset to society.

[Anonymous]

Do read this weekend's Post story about the time study showing how much time the firstborn gets compared to the second or later child. Fascinating!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the impact of additional humans on the planet: I think anyone arguing this point must take into account the positive impact, as well as the negative. Folks on boards like this one are the types to think about how to raise GOOD kids, good global citizens, and kind, generous people. That's why they're here, talking about it. Because they care.

And so, we can hope that the OP's third child will have a net positive impact on the world, rather than just be a drain on society.

There's a pretty terrible movie that came out a few years ago, with an absolutely brilliant (but un-PC) intro. It shows an educated, affluent couple talking about their decision to have kids. At first, they're putting it off because they want to travel and establish their careers. Then, they say that it would be irresponsible, given the state of the stock market. Then, they're ready, but they're older and having fertility troubles. Then the husband dies at 45, and the widow is talking about going ahead, "fingers crossed" with her frozen eggs. Meanwhile, there's a low-income, uneducated group of people who are procreating like crazy, saying stuff like, "Aw, damnit! I'm pregnant again!" The movie itself is about some future America where no one has an IQ over 80, because only the dumb, irresponsible people had children, and the whole society is on the brink of starvation because no one is smart enough to manage the economy. Again, it's seriously un-PC, but for all that, a reasonable mental exercise.

All this to say, people who love children should have children. They will raise them to be good people, and an asset to society.

You do not have to give birth to a child to be able to raise a child to be a good person. If I were a director of the movie that you cited, instead of writing a story where the educated widow is crossing her fingers re her frozen egg she instead would be researching adoption or foster parenting and the "im pregnant again" would be sitting in a room being counsel on family planning.

[Anonymous]

I have many of the same thoughts as previous posters.
I had my 2 year old twins with my first pregnancy and would love to experience pregancy, infancy, toddlerhood all again. The first time has been such a blur. I would love the dynamic of having a large family---lots of activity, different interests, etc.
However, I worry about the financials and historically I always said that we would stop at 2 kids (replacing ourselves) and then not add further to the population.
I would love to adopt but 1) I would miss not being pregnant or breastfeeding and 2) I have found that adoption is a long and expensive road. Our twins are the result of IVF and came after years of infertily. We had several adoption applications submitted that we withdrew when I became pregnant. The wait list for Chinese children (which we were interested in) is now upwards of 5 years and even that timing is very uncertain. Adoption is great in principal but often very difficult and expensive in practice.

Also, I think the thing that scares me the most about having 3 children is never being able to leave them. I find that even with our twins it is difficult for any of our family members (especially our elderly parents) to take care of them for an afternoon or ideally, overnight. With 3 children, I think we'd likely never get a moment away. We would get used to this but is something that currently gives me pause.

As to my husband----he would be thrilled with another and happy to stop with these two. Not much help as far as this all goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The movie itself is about some future America where no one has an IQ over 80, because only the dumb, irresponsible people had children, and the whole society is on the brink of starvation because no one is smart enough to manage the economy. Again, it's seriously un-PC, but for all that, a reasonable mental exercise.

All this to say, people who love children should have children. They will raise them to be good people, and an asset to society.

What is the name of this movie. The premise behind it (as you describe it) is nuts. Intelligence is not inherited, just because a "dumd" person had a child does not mean that the child will be dumb. If given similar educational opportunities this child will likely do just a well or better than the child of the educated, affluent people. Please lets not do down the road of suggesting that only rich people should have children.

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine used to joke that he only had 2 kids because it was easier to get a table at a restaurant, than if you had 3!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The movie itself is about some future America where no one has an IQ over 80, because only the dumb, irresponsible people had children, and the whole society is on the brink of starvation because no one is smart enough to manage the economy. Again, it's seriously un-PC, but for all that, a reasonable mental exercise.

All this to say, people who love children should have children. They will raise them to be good people, and an asset to society.

What is the name of this movie. The premise behind it (as you describe it) is nuts. Intelligence is not inherited, just because a "dumd" person had a child does not mean that the child will be dumb. If given similar educational opportunities this child will likely do just a well or better than the child of the educated, affluent people. Please lets not do down the road of suggesting that only rich people should have children.

I didn't read that poster as endorsing the movie's premise or suggesting that only wealthy people should have kids.

That said, intelligence is hereditary in part. Perhaps we can agree that wealthy people aren't necessarily smarter than the non-wealthy! But smarter parents will have, on average, smarter kids, just like taller or shorter parents will have taller or shorter kids.

[Anonymous]

The movie was "Idiocracy", and it could best be described as a dopey comedy. I'm not recommending it for your Netflix list!

However, the point about rich/educated people not having babies and thereby dooming society was not so much that they weren't passing down their genes (though that is one element); it's more about passing down values. If parents value education, if they are conscious of their environmental footprint, and aware of the needs of others, it stands to reason that their kids will grow up with those same ideals. Parents who don't care about any of this stuff will likely produce kids who are less responsible, less inclined to pursue higher education, and less likely to have a positive impact.

I think that the low/no-income, uneducated people in the movie, and their real-life counterparts, probably aren't frequenting parenting blogs, agonizing over the decision to have another child, (or cloth versus disposable diapers, or organic baby food, or "green" birthday parties)...

[Anonymous]

Regarding breastfeeding--I think I saw somewhere that adoptive parents (woman only) who can stimulate something in their breast and actually nurse. I can't remember where I saw this--does anyone know what I am talking about? This might be interesting for those parents who want to nurse and be adoptive parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding breastfeeding--I think I saw somewhere that adoptive parents (woman only) who can stimulate something in their breast and actually nurse. I can't remember where I saw this--does anyone know what I am talking about? This might be interesting for those parents who want to nurse and be adoptive parents.

Yes, it is possible to induce lactation. It takes a lot of work and dedication for it to happen, but it can. A friend of mine did this for her adopted son.