Stopping at 2 kids..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Is the best thing you can do for the environment.
2. We had the bandwidth for another typically developing child, but not a high-needs child. Nobody thinks they’re going to get the kid with severe disabilities, but it happens.
3. We looked at the projected cost of college. If you haven’t looked in awhile, it’s staggering.

+ a million. Our #2 is healthy and smart but not neurotypical, and a major pain to raise. That did it for us.

[Anonymous]

I think Gavin McInnes said it best. One is for losers. Two is for gays. Three is the bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

41 and deeply regretting not trying for a 3rd earlier.

Younger child is now 6. Feels like too big of an age gap, even if I could get pregnant today. My mother in law (who had 4) advised to not think about it and just keep going. I rolled my eyes at this advice but now wish I had listened and gone for a 3rd without overthinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Gavin McInnes said it best. One is for losers. Two is for gays. Three is the bare minimum.

Never heard of him. Mensa reject, I’m assuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Gavin McInnes said it best. One is for losers. Two is for gays. Three is the bare minimum.

Oh yes, I make all of my life choices based on what the Proud Boys think.

[Anonymous]

When we got married my DH (oldest of 4) was quite sure if we got to choose he’d want two children. He felt strongly that his parents had run out of time and energy and that his youngest siblings hadn’t had the attention the older siblings had. (His siblings are 2,3, and 8 years younger than he is.) I am the youngest of three (my siblings are 4.5 years and 3 years older than I am) and loved that dynamic. So we agreed to try for two and then reassess based on time, energy, health, resources etc.

It took me awhile to get pregnant with our children, especially the second, so I had them at 33 and 38. With my first I had a delivery complication and my second a potential risk during pregnancy (though I and the kids were okay). So age and health risks were big factors but, honestly, now in my mid 40s I don’t think I’d have the energy or attention if there were another child. My kids are 11 and 7 and I know quite a few that have another child in between that. We don’t have any family support where we live so it’s just us. It’s hard enough with the two of us, especially because our younger daughter has needed speech and occupational therapy and those take up a lot of time, sick leave etc. We could afford a third, but I also like not having to move to a larger apartment, not having to budget meals or travel or hesitate signing up for club sports etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we did a third, we’d have to get a second hotel room, one kid would sit by themselves during a flight, amusement parks, one kid would need to bring a friend or ride alone, car space would be tight. I’m happy with my two.

Most airplanes I go on are three seats across each way. So it’s 3 + 2. No kid sitting alone.

Yes, it does make travel more expensive. But I wouldn’t not have a second kid because of being uneven at an amusement park. It’s fine not to want a third kid, but to not have a third to avoid one parent ride solo on a roller coaster during an annual Disney trip is probably not a good reason. The truth is that all of these are reasons you like having two - they’re not reasons to NOT have a third. And that’s fine.

Yes for economy. Not so for business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 kids are just not getting the parental attention that 2 are. It’s mathematically impossible. And 2 kids are getting less than an only child. It’s just a decision you have to balance. My sister is just baby/toddler crazy. But once the kid can walk/talk/pee on their own, they must fend for themselves and she is on to the next baby.

Disagree. In my experience too much parent attention is not great for kids. Lots of special snowflakes out there who really struggle with the real world. Kids with 2+ siblings seem to be better adjusted in general. The helicopter parenting many people take on today is not good for kids. They are more anxious, insecure, self centered, and rigid.

I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 kids are just not getting the parental attention that 2 are. It’s mathematically impossible. And 2 kids are getting less than an only child. It’s just a decision you have to balance. My sister is just baby/toddler crazy. But once the kid can walk/talk/pee on their own, they must fend for themselves and she is on to the next baby.

Disagree. In my experience too much parent attention is not great for kids. Lots of special snowflakes out there who really struggle with the real world. Kids with 2+ siblings seem to be better adjusted in general. The helicopter parenting many people take on today is not good for kids. They are more anxious, insecure, self centered, and rigid.

I agree with you.

I think each child/sibling group/family is different and you can’t just make blanket statements like this. Some kids in larger families feel emotionally neglected (I am one of these. My siblings were more difficult kids and demanded more of my parents’ attention than I did and the assumption was that I would be fine and didn’t need parental attention as much) and would benefit from more one-one time/attention from parents. Some kids need more space and independence from parents to thrive. Some parents are helicopter-y (no matter how many kids they have) and this can be bad. Some parents are too hands-off (no matter how many kids they have) and this can be bad too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How did you decide to stop at 2 kids or decide to have more? We are on the fence about baby #3.

You are fine with zero. One is enough. Two is a splurge. Third is insanity. You matter. Your marriage matters. Your parents matter. Your existing kid dd matter. Don't stretch yourself physically, mentally, logistically and financially too thin. You'll have get lots of rips to mend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 kids are just not getting the parental attention that 2 are. It’s mathematically impossible. And 2 kids are getting less than an only child. It’s just a decision you have to balance. My sister is just baby/toddler crazy. But once the kid can walk/talk/pee on their own, they must fend for themselves and she is on to the next baby.

Disagree. In my experience too much parent attention is not great for kids. Lots of special snowflakes out there who really struggle with the real world. Kids with 2+ siblings seem to be better adjusted in general. The helicopter parenting many people take on today is not good for kids. They are more anxious, insecure, self centered, and rigid.

I agree with you.

I think each child/sibling group/family is different and you can’t just make blanket statements like this. Some kids in larger families feel emotionally neglected (I am one of these. My siblings were more difficult kids and demanded more of my parents’ attention than I did and the assumption was that I would be fine and didn’t need parental attention as much) and would benefit from more one-one time/attention from parents. Some kids need more space and independence from parents to thrive. Some parents are helicopter-y (no matter how many kids they have) and this can be bad. Some parents are too hands-off (no matter how many kids they have) and this can be bad too.

+1, I'm a "good kid" from a big family and the main thing it taught me is not to be better adjusted but to never expect anything. As I've gotten older, that's actually been a negative and required a lot of effort to correct -- I was in the habit of doing stuff like ignoring persistent physical pain for long periods of time because I didn't want to inconvenience anyone or I didn't think it was a big deal (a habit that landed me in the ER with a big deal because I had convinced myself I was "being a baby" and "making a big deal out of nothing").

I know kids from big families who are great and well adjusted, but I also know the opposite. I also know only children and those with just one sibling who are among the most well adjusted, level-headed people I've ever met.

I think the critical factor is quality of parenting, and that some people do better with fewer kids and some do better with more kids. Choose the number of kids for whom you will be the best parent. If that's 3 or 4, go for it! Some people really do thrive in that setting and do best with larger groups. But for many families, the answer will be 1 or 2, and those kids will be much better off in that smaller family than they would be with more siblings if it means they get the best version of their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 kids are just not getting the parental attention that 2 are. It’s mathematically impossible. And 2 kids are getting less than an only child. It’s just a decision you have to balance. My sister is just baby/toddler crazy. But once the kid can walk/talk/pee on their own, they must fend for themselves and she is on to the next baby.

Disagree. In my experience too much parent attention is not great for kids. Lots of special snowflakes out there who really struggle with the real world. Kids with 2+ siblings seem to be better adjusted in general. The helicopter parenting many people take on today is not good for kids. They are more anxious, insecure, self centered, and rigid.

My sister helicopter parents her 3 kids. I have 2 children, one of whom boards.
You don’t know what you are talking about at all. Keep your mouth shut.

So no one else is entitled to an opinion different from yours? Why are you so defensive? In my experience as a teacher, children from one or two child families do have trouble sharing and parents do helicopter. As for boarding one of yours, maybe you really should have only had one.

[Anonymous]

After we had two I realized risking having a third that could potentially have special needs wasn’t just a risk I was taking on, but a risk for our whole family. In the most obvious way, it would impact my kids and the time and resources we had for them. We’ve seen it happen with two sets of friends. Their healthy/non-sn child gets significantly less of their parents attention, and that’s manifested in not so good ways. Their needs often come second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After we had two I realized risking having a third that could potentially have special needs wasn’t just a risk I was taking on, but a risk for our whole family. In the most obvious way, it would impact my kids and the time and resources we had for them. We’ve seen it happen with two sets of friends. Their healthy/non-sn child gets significantly less of their parents attention, and that’s manifested in not so good ways. Their needs often come second.

I thought about this too, but why is this more of a factor for a third than a second?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we did a third, we’d have to get a second hotel room, one kid would sit by themselves during a flight, amusement parks, one kid would need to bring a friend or ride alone, car space would be tight. I’m happy with my two.

Most airplanes I go on are three seats across each way. So it’s 3 + 2. No kid sitting alone.

Yes, it does make travel more expensive. But I wouldn’t not have a second kid because of being uneven at an amusement park. It’s fine not to want a third kid, but to not have a third to avoid one parent ride solo on a roller coaster during an annual Disney trip is probably not a good reason. The truth is that all of these are reasons you like having two - they’re not reasons to NOT have a third. And that’s fine.

Yes for economy. Not so for business.

Chuckle. My family of 5 just flew business and my husband got to sit alone. Everyone was happy.