My husband and I had planned on world domination, but were completely exhausted by the time we had our third. We reassessed and moved on to plan b.

Op, your reasoning is not shared. Simple as that.

Anonymous wrote:OP here.... I don't check the board very often, just once a day.

Several observations:

1) Of course, if you end up being pregnant with multiples, congratulations, such is life. If you end up merging families, such is life. If an "accident" happens, such is life. If you end divorcing with children but remarrying a spouse without children, I do understand that you might want to have a child with the spouse. And yes, adopting is a wonderful thing. There are many children in need of loving families. I wish I could just adopt INSTEAD of having my own children, but my longing to have my own biological children was stronger. It is difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all variables in the introductory paragraph of a new post. You know what I meant when I said "decide." A well-thought through decision between a man and a woman about their family future.

2) I am not judging. I am just asking. I am not telling anyone how to reproduce. "Why do I care?" I just want to know, because I see large families everywhere around me, and it is different from what I was seeing around me growing up.

3) I understand what the replacement fertility rate is. But I also know that the world population is growing constantly. Ideally, every family would have between 2 and 3 children. This way, the world population would remain stable. We all know that some people don't have any kids, while some have 10+. But overall, people are having more kids than what is needed. For those posters, who were offended by my "highly irresponsible" remark, I understand that how many children to have is mostly an emotional, not a rational decision. I don't think you are having 3 kids because the replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per family. You couldn't care less what the rate is.

4) To all offended mothers of singletons: What I meant was, for a child, having a sibling at home is better. A peer, a playmate, a confidant, a competitor (i.e. you are not the center of the universe), etc. If you disagree, fine, this is not the point of my post. You are not contributing to the world's overpopulation.

5) I also understand that growing up in a large family and generally being surrounded by a large family is an important factor: it is what you know, like, and cannot think of changing. I also understand that if you were one of two children and "hated" it, you decide not to have two children (maybe none, maybe only one, maybe more than 2). Again, I see this as an emotional, not a rational reason.

6) The "what if one sibling dies and there is a lot of pressure and reliance from parents on this one child only" argument is ridiculous. This is a reasoning from 1900s, when families had 5+ children because they knew that one diphtheria outbreak can wipe them all out in one short week.

7) The "status" or "luxury" observation is interesting. Maybe the reason why I am seeing it here more is the fact that this is very a very affluent area.

Well, guess what? Most other people's need to have bio children was stronger than a desire to adopt too, so there you have it.

I was adopted and have an adopted sister. One of my own children is adopted. So right there are three children that someone else with 3+ kids can use.

Well pregnancy number two turned out to be twins in our case.

Anonymous wrote:Usually people who have more than two or three kids are the type to drive their SUV like it's a battle tank in the local Costco parking lot. Or they push that baby stroller through crowds of people like they are wielding a weapon. And they dump their kids off at the children's section of Barnes and Noble or the kiddie area of Whole Foods cafe while they let strangers be hassled and bothered by their disruptive brood while they sneak away to do their shopping or read a book. They usually are the type to make everyone else go crazy taking care of their offspring.

Whoa! Hello, there, Mr. Judgmental! Sounds like you're a real joy to have around.

This too:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ultimate-status-symbol-is-a-big-family-2015-5

"When you think about it, it's logical that a big family equals a big status symbol: It's expensive to raise kids anywhere, and especially in New York City, where full-time nannies, private school, and summer camp are standard expenses. In the US, the average cost of raising a child is $245,340, according to a recent government report. But that figure more than doubles — to $540,514 — when that child is being raised in Manhattan.

Some of the city's top preschools charge as much as $40,000 a year in tuition, and tuition for private grade school can be even higher. Think of a family with six kids, each attending two years of preschool and 13 years of grade school, and that's millions of dollars for education alone, inflation aside."

Anonymous wrote:How are kids a status symbol?

There's a bunch of articles about this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403217.html

"What shocks people, when we tell them, isn't the thought of hauling three kids onto a place for a vacation, or even the idea of coming home every night to a houseful of runny noses and homework assignments. What gets them is the sheer financial audacity. Raising kids today costs a fortune. Last month, the Department of Agriculture estimated that each American child costs an average of $204,060 to house, clothe, educate and entertain until the age of 18."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/fashion/The-Growing-Three-Child-Household-in-Manhattan.html?ref=fashion&_r=5

"The richer people in New York are now having more kids,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College who has analyzed the data. Across all income groups of white non-Hispanics across the five boroughs, those earning from $200,000 to $399,000 have had the largest increase in those with three children: 21 percent in 2011, up from 15 percent in 2000, an increase of nearly half. Those white non-Hispanics earning $500,000 or more were a close second, with three-child families up 6 percentage points in 2011, an increase of two-thirds from 2000."

How are kids a status symbol?

Anonymous wrote:OP here.... I don't check the board very often, just once a day.

Several observations:

1) Of course, if you end up being pregnant with multiples, congratulations, such is life. If you end up merging families, such is life. If an "accident" happens, such is life. If you end divorcing with children but remarrying a spouse without children, I do understand that you might want to have a child with the spouse. And yes, adopting is a wonderful thing. There are many children in need of loving families. I wish I could just adopt INSTEAD of having my own children, but my longing to have my own biological children was stronger.
It is difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all variables in the introductory paragraph of a new post. You know what I meant when I said "decide." A well-thought through decision between a man and a woman about their family future.

2) I am not judging. I am just asking. I am not telling anyone how to reproduce. "Why do I care?" I just want to know, because I see large families everywhere around me, and it is different from what I was seeing around me growing up.

3) I understand what the replacement fertility rate is. But I also know that the world population is growing constantly. Ideally, every family would have between 2 and 3 children. This way, the world population would remain stable. We all know that some people don't have any kids, while some have 10+. But overall, people are having more kids than what is needed. For those posters, who were offended by my "highly irresponsible" remark, I understand that how many children to have is mostly an emotional, not a rational decision. I don't think you are having 3 kids because the replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per family. You couldn't care less what the rate is.

4) To all offended mothers of singletons: What I meant was, for a child, having a sibling at home is better. A peer, a playmate, a confidant, a competitor (i.e. you are not the center of the universe), etc. If you disagree, fine, this is not the point of my post. You are not contributing to the world's overpopulation.

5) I also understand that growing up in a large family and generally being surrounded by a large family is an important factor: it is what you know, like, and cannot think of changing. I also understand that if you were one of two children and "hated" it, you decide not to have two children (maybe none, maybe only one, maybe more than 2). Again, I see this as an emotional, not a rational reason.

6) The "what if one sibling dies and there is a lot of pressure and reliance from parents on this one child only" argument is ridiculous. This is a reasoning from 1900s, when families had 5+ children because they knew that one diphtheria outbreak can wipe them all out in one short week.

7) The "status" or "luxury" observation is interesting. Maybe the reason why I am seeing it here more is the fact that this is very a very affluent area.

That doesn't agree with the low birth rate of Washington DC- 53 births per 1,000 women between 15 and 44 years old.

Anonymous wrote:OP here.... I don't check the board very often, just once a day.

Several observations:

1) Of course, if you end up being pregnant with multiples, congratulations, such is life. If you end up merging families, such is life. If an "accident" happens, such is life. If you end divorcing with children but remarrying a spouse without children, I do understand that you might want to have a child with the spouse. And yes, adopting is a wonderful thing. There are many children in need of loving families. I wish I could just adopt INSTEAD of having my own children, but my longing to have my own biological children was stronger.
It is difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all variables in the introductory paragraph of a new post. You know what I meant when I said "decide." A well-thought through decision between a man and a woman about their family future.

2) I am not judging. I am just asking. I am not telling anyone how to reproduce. "Why do I care?" I just want to know, because I see large families everywhere around me, and it is different from what I was seeing around me growing up.

3) I understand what the replacement fertility rate is. But I also know that the world population is growing constantly. Ideally, every family would have between 2 and 3 children. This way, the world population would remain stable. We all know that some people don't have any kids, while some have 10+. But overall, people are having more kids than what is needed. For those posters, who were offended by my "highly irresponsible" remark, I understand that how many children to have is mostly an emotional, not a rational decision. I don't think you are having 3 kids because the replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per family. You couldn't care less what the rate is.

4) To all offended mothers of singletons: What I meant was, for a child, having a sibling at home is better. A peer, a playmate, a confidant, a competitor (i.e. you are not the center of the universe), etc. If you disagree, fine, this is not the point of my post. You are not contributing to the world's overpopulation.

5) I also understand that growing up in a large family and generally being surrounded by a large family is an important factor: it is what you know, like, and cannot think of changing. I also understand that if you were one of two children and "hated" it, you decide not to have two children (maybe none, maybe only one, maybe more than 2). Again, I see this as an emotional, not a rational reason.

6) The "what if one sibling dies and there is a lot of pressure and reliance from parents on this one child only" argument is ridiculous. This is a reasoning from 1900s, when families had 5+ children because they knew that one diphtheria outbreak can wipe them all out in one short week.

7) The "status" or "luxury" observation is interesting. Maybe the reason why I am seeing it here more is the fact that this is very a very affluent area.

It sounds here like you are insinuating that the only acceptable reason to have any kids at all is for population replacement (your given "rational" reason). If that is true, I feel very, very sorry for your children.

Anonymous wrote:I grew up as an only child and I absolutely >hated< it. Everything fell to me, my parents' expectations, ambitions, everything – even if it was well meant. I came from a blue-collar family where I was the first person to graduate from college. I grew up feeling the need to be that perfect child, because I was the only one. I never had anyone to talk to about my parents, and I internalized a lot. Even as an adult today, I still feel like being the only one to be responsible for them as they age – if they require special help – is overwhelming. I was envious my whole life of friends who had siblings who could share the joys and the burdens along the way.

I have three wonderful kids. There are days where i want to pull my hair out. But watching them all be there for one another and find joy in one another has been priceless.

+1000. Also an only child here who hates it. I would have had 8 kids if infertility hadn't gotten in the way. And as a former infertility patient, I cannot stand people who judge others' reproductive choices. OP, it is NONE of your business.

Usually people who have more than two or three kids are the type to drive their SUV like it's a battle tank in the local Costco parking lot. Or they push that baby stroller through crowds of people like they are wielding a weapon. And they dump their kids off at the children's section of Barnes and Noble or the kiddie area of Whole Foods cafe while they let strangers be hassled and bothered by their disruptive brood while they sneak away to do their shopping or read a book. They usually are the type to make everyone else go crazy taking care of their offspring.

Anonymous wrote:Assuming this is a first marriage (i.e. no children from previous relationships), why would you and your husband decide to have more than just 2 children?
When I was a kid, all my friends had usually just one sibling. Now, I see families with more than 2 kids all the time. Usually 3+. Obviously, having one sibling is better than being a single child. But why more?

I teach my children that it is highly irresponsible to replace two people with more than just two. I also think it is much better for a family life (less activities to go to, more time to spend as a family, less financially demanding, less stressful, etc.)

Yes, you are judging, OP. Look above: "highly irresponsible." You wrote that and you were judging others when you wrote it.

Your intellectual dishonesty can easily be shown by quoting your opening post.

OP here.... I don't check the board very often, just once a day.

Several observations:

1) Of course, if you end up being pregnant with multiples, congratulations, such is life. If you end up merging families, such is life. If an "accident" happens, such is life. If you end divorcing with children but remarrying a spouse without children, I do understand that you might want to have a child with the spouse. And yes, adopting is a wonderful thing. There are many children in need of loving families. I wish I could just adopt INSTEAD of having my own children, but my longing to have my own biological children was stronger.
It is difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all variables in the introductory paragraph of a new post. You know what I meant when I said "decide." A well-thought through decision between a man and a woman about their family future.

2) I am not judging. I am just asking. I am not telling anyone how to reproduce. "Why do I care?" I just want to know, because I see large families everywhere around me, and it is different from what I was seeing around me growing up.

3) I understand what the replacement fertility rate is. But I also know that the world population is growing constantly. Ideally, every family would have between 2 and 3 children. This way, the world population would remain stable. We all know that some people don't have any kids, while some have 10+. But overall, people are having more kids than what is needed. For those posters, who were offended by my "highly irresponsible" remark, I understand that how many children to have is mostly an emotional, not a rational decision. I don't think you are having 3 kids because the replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per family. You couldn't care less what the rate is.

4) To all offended mothers of singletons: What I meant was, for a child, having a sibling at home is better. A peer, a playmate, a confidant, a competitor (i.e. you are not the center of the universe), etc. If you disagree, fine, this is not the point of my post. You are not contributing to the world's overpopulation.

5) I also understand that growing up in a large family and generally being surrounded by a large family is an important factor: it is what you know, like, and cannot think of changing. I also understand that if you were one of two children and "hated" it, you decide not to have two children (maybe none, maybe only one, maybe more than 2). Again, I see this as an emotional, not a rational reason.

6) The "what if one sibling dies and there is a lot of pressure and reliance from parents on this one child only" argument is ridiculous. This is a reasoning from 1900s, when families had 5+ children because they knew that one diphtheria outbreak can wipe them all out in one short week.

7) The "status" or "luxury" observation is interesting. Maybe the reason why I am seeing it here more is the fact that this is very a very affluent area.

Some people in my family have 5 or 6 kids. This is something to be decided between a couple, not strangers.

I also plan to have a third because I want too.