Anonymous wrote:I think 4 is an insane number of kids and there’s no way the kids can get the individual attention they need from their parents but that’s only my opinion.

As one of 4 who has 4 kids, I disagree.

It’s best to avoid an odd man out, and good parents focus on quality time with the family—individually, in pairs, and as a group.

Anonymous wrote:You’re overthinking this. Have another kid if you want but having 3 does not mean that one is the odd man out. (Parent of 3, and one of 3 kids myself).

+1
This isn't a good reason to have another kid. I'm not opposed to more kids - i have 5 myself. But there is no guarantee they will get along. When we first started having kids i thought that even numbers were good. Honestly you go to an amusement park and someone is scared of the ride and sits out. Someone is throwing a tantrum and doesn't participate in the even numbered game. Kids turn into teenagers and don't even want to hang around with you. Having an even number of kids doesn't make life any less messy.
I repeat this is not even worth considering.

How does it matter what I would do? Do what feels right for your family.

Stop at three.

I would not go for a forth for this reason.

It’s not a business proposition for God’s sake. If you love your kids and are healthy, go for it.

For someone who would ask this question? I say stop at 3 please.

I’d worry less about someone being the odd man out and more about things like money and time. Four kids is a lot. We have three, and I can’t imagine us having the time and energy for another voice at the table. We’re able to give each kid the attention they need, but only just—four would be too much. I also work FT and want to keep doing so. We don’t have local family support, so factor that in, too.

As for the odd man out, it works fine for us so far. Either one kid is hanging out with a parent, or doing their own thing. It’s rare for us that two gang up against the one; we have GBB, first two are 23 months apart and second and third have 2.5 years in between them.

You’re overthinking this. Have another kid if you want but having 3 does not mean that one is the odd man out. (Parent of 3, and one of 3 kids myself).

I have a friend with 4. All boys. Older 2 are 16 mos apart. Then next one is 3 years, then 4th is 2 years after that.
Right now the younger 2 are 4 and 2. 4yo wants to play with the older siblings as of right now, not the baby. I think this will change as they get older though.

Having more than 2 kids is extremely selfish IMO.

I think 4 is an insane number of kids and there’s no way the kids can get the individual attention they need from their parents but that’s only my opinion.

With that spacing I’d probably go for a 4th.

Anonymous wrote:We have 3 with the first two being close in age (19 months apart) and the same gender and the youngest is 3.5 years younger than the middle. I am worried that the younger one will be perpetually left out. We have to decide soon if we are going to have to have another one due to age (we are 37). Is 3 a hard number? Would you go for a 4th?

3 is odd man out. With 4 each has a buddy.

We have 3 with the first two being close in age (19 months apart) and the same gender and the youngest is 3.5 years younger than the middle. I am worried that the younger one will be perpetually left out. We have to decide soon if we are going to have to have another one due to age (we are 37). Is 3 a hard number? Would you go for a 4th?