Anonymous wrote:We just like to have lots of sex. Our fifth was an "oops."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Status

This is a new thing, centered around major metropolitan cities.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I recommend an HHI of at least 150K per child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Status

This is a new thing, centered around major metropolitan cities.

That is ridiculous. I'm planning a third now and have literally never considered status.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Did not read responses. OP sounds like a shriveled turd. It's OK to have 1 kid. Or 2 or 3 or 6. Or none.

Anonymous wrote: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:

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.)

With such an open mind, I'm sure you'll make a great MIL one day.