Parents of 3- do you wish you’d stopped at 2 or 1

[Anonymous]

Definitely not. My first two are boys and my third is a girl. While I love all my children equally, there is something special about being a mom to a daughter.

[Anonymous]

There are a great many very thoughtful comments here from people who sound like they have their parenting priorities straight.

But still, no mention of any moral obligation to consider the number of children brought into this world with an eye to the climate crisis and the future those children will endure.

I understand that many of you already have the children and nobody is asking you to regret them. But to have a multiple page conversation about family size with discussion only about financial issues and parental bandwidth v parental joy etc. and not any discussion of this massively important issue . . .

How can you say you put your kids’ best interests first? If this issue doesn’t even come up on this conversation, then certainly it is not foremost in how you are choosing to live your lives or teach your kids to live theirs.

Please, convince me that I’m wrong here.

It seems to me that the folks with the most skin in the game - the most offspring and potential for further generations of progeny - should be the most deeply invested in trying to fix things and give them a future worth having.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a great many very thoughtful comments here from people who sound like they have their parenting priorities straight.

But still, no mention of any moral obligation to consider the number of children brought into this world with an eye to the climate crisis and the future those children will endure.

I understand that many of you already have the children and nobody is asking you to regret them. But to have a multiple page conversation about family size with discussion only about financial issues and parental bandwidth v parental joy etc. and not any discussion of this massively important issue . . .

How can you say you put your kids’ best interests first? If this issue doesn’t even come up on this conversation, then certainly it is not foremost in how you are choosing to live your lives or teach your kids to live theirs.

Please, convince me that I’m wrong here.

It seems to me that the folks with the most skin in the game - the most offspring and potential for further generations of progeny - should be the most deeply invested in trying to fix things and give them a future worth having.

Do you have any kids? If so, you're being a hypocrite here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of two, I consider a third because I think having more kids diffuses competition and self centeredness among overly coddles two children families.

My husband is one of two and his sister, although nice, is one of the most vain and self centered (and spoiled) people I’ve met. I 100% believe this outcome is a result of my in laws providing too much intense attention and coddling.

In general people I know from bigger families are close with their siblings and learned early how to exist amongst other people.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

I’m sorry PP, that sucks. I’m also 1 of 4 kids, and my parents did a lot of stuff wrong (ha), but they did raise us to celebrate and enjoy our siblings. There was no competition between us, and I believe that is because our parents made sure to never compare us - we were celebrated as individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses.

I don’t know how they did it, but they did meet my emotional needs and I had a “normal” childhood in terms of development and independence. It probably helped A LOT that was mom was a SAHM.

My parents did not do anything wrong, they did the best they could. They were very hard working, dedicated parents. There just simply wasn't enough time or resources! My father worked long hours, my mom part-time. There was barely enough time in the day to do the basics: cook, clean, laundry, groceries, school pickups, activity drop offs etc. There was little to no time for my mom to check homework or spend enough 1-1 time with me to notice when i was sad or something was off. As the eldest, even as a child, you implicitly understand that the 2 year old needs to be fed, needs to be bathed, needs to see the doctor, more than you need comforting because someone was mean to you in school. This is also what i mean by competition too, not some aggressive sibling rivalry. The more people you throw into the mix, the more basic needs there are even as a parent's attention and time are finite. You are forced to mature quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a great many very thoughtful comments here from people who sound like they have their parenting priorities straight.

But still, no mention of any moral obligation to consider the number of children brought into this world with an eye to the climate crisis and the future those children will endure.

I understand that many of you already have the children and nobody is asking you to regret them. But to have a multiple page conversation about family size with discussion only about financial issues and parental bandwidth v parental joy etc. and not any discussion of this massively important issue . . .

How can you say you put your kids’ best interests first? If this issue doesn’t even come up on this conversation, then certainly it is not foremost in how you are choosing to live your lives or teach your kids to live theirs.

Please, convince me that I’m wrong here.

It seems to me that the folks with the most skin in the game - the most offspring and potential for further generations of progeny - should be the most deeply invested in trying to fix things and give them a future worth having.

I’m a mom of 3 and i will say that the environmental impact of adding another child crossed my mind. But, I am an only child with no cousins. My family of origin’s carbon footprint so to speak is already much smaller than if I had a sibling who had 2 kids and cousins who had 2 kids and so on. So I felt in the scheme of things having 1 more child so that my family isn’t super teeny (once my parents are gone my DH and kid are it for me) isn’t the worst thing in the world. DH does have one sibling, and a cousin with 2 kids each, but that is it. We aren’t from some huge families to begin with.

I also try to make environmentally sound choices elsewhere. We live in a walkable area and do not drive a lot. We have a smaller home and try to minimize consumption of one-time use stuff (e.g. asking for and gifting things in my Buy Nothing Group). I’ve been blessed with a lot of friends who give us some really nice hand me down clothes and when I buy nice things for my kids I hand them down as well. We fly on a plane maybe once every year or two. We have a pollinator-friendly yard with native plants and solar panels and an EV. We do not spray pesticides like those mosquito sprays. We compost our food items and buy eco friendly where we can (e.g. bamboo instead of plastic).

We aren’t perfect by any stretch. But as someone with 3 kids, I am very invested in the future of our planet.

[Anonymous]

^Also I think your question is unfair because this thread is about whether you regret having 3. It’s obviously going to be written from the perspective of how an additional child has affected your day to day personal life, not some macro level discussion of the ethics of having 3 kids.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t read this as anyone wishing a particular child away, just as someone who dearly loves all three of their children but thinks generally, two would have been a more enjoyable life (because we are still entitled to enjoy life). But I also agree that if it’s something that’s weighing on your mind and you need to talk about it then you should.
And perhaps you need to try and find a way to schedule some you time… don’t lose yourself in it all ❤️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. If anything I regret not having a fourth.

+1 When I envision my preferred future it involves four adult children. Alas, I have stopped at 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, see a therapist. You need to adjust expectations and not secretly wallow in how three is not how your preferred number. There comes a point where what’s done is done, and it’s really unhealthy to turn that over in your mind.

This is the same person posting again and again. You need help. Either you are a psycho troll who wants three kids and wants validation that even though you want three kids and didn’t have three that you’re better off or you have three kids and can’t figure out how to adequately parent them which is a reflection of your shortcomings.

As a parent of three, I love my kids and I feel blessed to have three. Learn to embrace the decisions you made and love your best life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a great many very thoughtful comments here from people who sound like they have their parenting priorities straight.

But still, no mention of any moral obligation to consider the number of children brought into this world with an eye to the climate crisis and the future those children will endure.

I understand that many of you already have the children and nobody is asking you to regret them. But to have a multiple page conversation about family size with discussion only about financial issues and parental bandwidth v parental joy etc. and not any discussion of this massively important issue . . .

How can you say you put your kids’ best interests first? If this issue doesn’t even come up on this conversation, then certainly it is not foremost in how you are choosing to live your lives or teach your kids to live theirs.

Please, convince me that I’m wrong here.

It seems to me that the folks with the most skin in the game - the most offspring and potential for further generations of progeny - should be the most deeply invested in trying to fix things and give them a future worth having.

I’m a mom of 3 and i will say that the environmental impact of adding another child crossed my mind. But, I am an only child with no cousins. My family of origin’s carbon footprint so to speak is already much smaller than if I had a sibling who had 2 kids and cousins who had 2 kids and so on. So I felt in the scheme of things having 1 more child so that my family isn’t super teeny (once my parents are gone my DH and kid are it for me) isn’t the worst thing in the world. DH does have one sibling, and a cousin with 2 kids each, but that is it. We aren’t from some huge families to begin with.

I also try to make environmentally sound choices elsewhere. We live in a walkable area and do not drive a lot. We have a smaller home and try to minimize consumption of one-time use stuff (e.g. asking for and gifting things in my Buy Nothing Group). I’ve been blessed with a lot of friends who give us some really nice hand me down clothes and when I buy nice things for my kids I hand them down as well. We fly on a plane maybe once every year or two. We have a pollinator-friendly yard with native plants and solar panels and an EV. We do not spray pesticides like those mosquito sprays. We compost our food items and buy eco friendly where we can (e.g. bamboo instead of plastic).

We aren’t perfect by any stretch. But as someone with 3 kids, I am very invested in the future of our planet.

Honestly, I have three and work in sustainability. You’re not impacting the planet with your third child. Prince Harry and Meghan with their two children, big mansion, XL lawn in drought stricken CA, and private plane use are impacting it way way more.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes. Only because she’s so so hard. She’s just got a big personality and dealing with it takes a lot from the other kids.

I love 3 though. I love how it feels like a big family. Both of my kids say their favorite sibling is the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are a great many very thoughtful comments here from people who sound like they have their parenting priorities straight.

But still, no mention of any moral obligation to consider the number of children brought into this world with an eye to the climate crisis and the future those children will endure.

I understand that many of you already have the children and nobody is asking you to regret them. But to have a multiple page conversation about family size with discussion only about financial issues and parental bandwidth v parental joy etc. and not any discussion of this massively important issue . . .

How can you say you put your kids’ best interests first? If this issue doesn’t even come up on this conversation, then certainly it is not foremost in how you are choosing to live your lives or teach your kids to live theirs.

Please, convince me that I’m wrong here.

It seems to me that the folks with the most skin in the game - the most offspring and potential for further generations of progeny - should be the most deeply invested in trying to fix things and give them a future worth having.

Developing countries with very high birth rates have very low carbon footprints. It’s not about the number of kids one has. In fact with an only child you can afford more carbon rich lifestyle like international trips that most 3+ families can’t. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a great many very thoughtful comments here from people who sound like they have their parenting priorities straight.

But still, no mention of any moral obligation to consider the number of children brought into this world with an eye to the climate crisis and the future those children will endure.

I understand that many of you already have the children and nobody is asking you to regret them. But to have a multiple page conversation about family size with discussion only about financial issues and parental bandwidth v parental joy etc. and not any discussion of this massively important issue . . .

How can you say you put your kids’ best interests first? If this issue doesn’t even come up on this conversation, then certainly it is not foremost in how you are choosing to live your lives or teach your kids to live theirs.

Please, convince me that I’m wrong here.

It seems to me that the folks with the most skin in the game - the most offspring and potential for further generations of progeny - should be the most deeply invested in trying to fix things and give them a future worth having.

Developing countries with very high birth rates have very low carbon footprints. It’s not about the number of kids one has. In fact with an only child you can afford more carbon rich lifestyle like international trips that most 3+ families can’t. You are barking up the wrong tree.

This. I know a family with one child where both parents drive Lincoln Navigator/Cadillac Escalade type cars and travel frequently because it’s easier to travel with one. I have three children, live in a 1900 sqft house in SF with a tiny backyard, and own two cars (both Hondas). It’s about lifestyle choices more than the number of children you have. And the birth rate is still declining in the US. Apparently no one, including OP, wants kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true parents of 3 sometimes tell others to stop at 2. But I'll also note that I've met parents or 2 who have suggested not having children at all! Some people don't like parenting, and even more people maybe go through phases where they really don't like it.

Though I do think the more kids you have, the more likely it is that a tough parenting phase will prompt you to say "don't have more kids" (or even "don't have kids"). No matter what anyone tells you, 2 is harder than 1, 3 is harder than 2, and so on. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

I don’t like parenting but wouldn’t tell anyone when to stop but would express my own truth

[Anonymous]

My sister has 4 and I know there is some regret after #3. Their lifestyle had to change a lot after that