2.5 year old, 8mo, and try for another now?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Would this be crazy? I HATE the baby stage, once we are out I never want to go back so if I’m going to have a 3rd I want to get on with it right now. I do find life challenging with 2 currently and I’m tired etc and imagine I’ll be even more tired bc even more nights will go to hell....but would it be overall horrific for a few years? Some days I feel like I could power through and other days I can’t imagine having another set of intense needs to meet. #1 is pretty easy, #2 is super intense |
Anonymous
| Yes, it would be crazy. Number 2 would get the short end of the stick as the middle and still being a baby ( assuming you get pregnant right away) Why not enjoy the two you have? Why do you want a third? |
Anonymous
|
Are you sure you want a third? Yeah the baby years are tough but a third also means you have 50% higher daycare costs, that many more extracurriculars, your spouse and you can't divide and conquer weekend activities, you probably need a bigger car and maybe house, and another $+00k+ college expenses. There's more than just the baby stage to consider.
If you're sure you want one, go ahead. Although I've heard from other parents that waiting until the older two are more self sufficient makes the baby stage a lot more enjoyable with the third, rather than something to get through. With three that little I think it will honestly be h3ll for a couple years at least... |
Anonymous
| Why? Why not wait a few years? |
Anonymous
|
I know sooooo many people with this “get it over with” mentality.... you have no idea how much harder things are going to get. None.
|
Anonymous
| I have three so I’m not opposed to bigger families, but it doesn’t sound like you want one. It’s perfectly wonderful to have two kids. No need to suffer through anything. Just enjoy your baby. |
Anonymous
+1 maybe you would enjoy the baby stage more if you had time to enjoy your kids rather than popping them out to “get this stage over with.” |
Anonymous
Seriously. Are you trying to make your life miserable? |
Anonymous
Hmmmm - interesting feedback. I just hate the first 6mo or so and then it’s ok until they drop to 1 nap and then it’s amazing. Both of mine had lots of breastfeeding issues, sleep issues, and in general I feel like the first 6 months is just constantly trying to get them to eat or sleep and everyone crying. I figured by the time #3 got here, 1 and 2 would be on the same schedule (one nap a day, walking around) and could stick together with a care giver while the baby stayed home. I could get let’s of help to care for the baby (very close Inlaws who wish they could just have all my kids move in with them forever, ability to hire help) so that could ease some of the awfulness. I guess what I’m trying to think through is how beyond less sleep is it awful. I know someone will say “it’s a whole additional person” but before having 1 it was hard to imagine why a baby is tough, before having a second it wasn’t really on my radar that the second would make the first more difficult just bc of his adjusting to baby, so I’m trying to understand my blind spots I want a 3rd bc kids are awesome, I want to raise another person and kids my kids siblings for a warm home life long term (not a guarantee I know). I just hate all the ways the first year limits your life if they’re difficult babies so I wouldn’t want to get to the stage of like a 4 and 5 year old and then have to go back to no travel, lots of naps,etc |
Anonymous
| Do the planet and your two children a favor and stop breeding. Or at least take some time for your baby to be a baby. |
Anonymous
|
My sister and brother in law did this. They had 4 in 4.5 years. They wanted 4 and didn't want the baby / infant stage to drag on for too long.
It was pretty rough the first few years. Once the older two were in school (she is a SAHM) it got a lot easier. They had quite a bit of family help the first few years. Overall, I think they would do it again. They have liked the kids being around the same developmental age / stage - makes it easier to do activities and family stuff. Their kids are all older now and they are very busy running kids to events and activities but it has worked out really well for them. |
Anonymous
+1 I have a lot more kids than that and it’s hitting me now that they are teenagers. I would wait a bit and reassess in a few months. |
Anonymous
| Spread it out!! I had my first 2 close together then waited longer before having the 3rd. 1 and 2 are 5.5 and 4 years older than the third, and it has been awesome. I’ve really enjoyed my 3rd, and the baby/toddler phase has been much easier because I know what to expect, the best way to handle the tougher stuff, and I’m just more relaxed. Also my older two are more independent, and love helping out with the 3rd. |
Anonymous
To be real, your “it’s amazing” goes up to 2.5. You don’t yet know what it’s like to have an older child. I always found 1-3 (or 1.5-3) to be the easiest and most fun. Little kids, little problems and all that. I get wanting to have lots of toddlers, but it doesn’t sound like you have a sense of what lies beyond. |
Anonymous
| If you think your life is limited now by the logistics of having two babies, it's actually going to get infinitely harder with 3 close in age because with two you can basically have one parent per kid at times (assuming your DH is involved). And the logistics problems actually get worse as the 3 get older as far as juggling their activities, schooling, etc. if they are close in age. |