Anonymous wrote:It is a huge gift to give your child or children additional siblings. One they will have their whole lives. But it is not required, nor is it selfish not to go above and beyond what you can afford or emotionally manage.

For the record, I had one sibling who sexually abused me and the other who physically and verbally terrorized me as a child. Siblings are not always a “gift”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not selfish, but I don't think 2 is a "big" family either.

I think the people with 4+ kids are the selfish ones

Why? Having 4+ pretty much requires you to be selfLESS most of the time.

Usually, but then there are also the rich women who have insurance kids and then just pawn them off on a nanny.

Didn’t read the thread. You do you! Not selfish!

7 years would be a big age gap. Good chance your siblings won't be close and the adjustment of a new baby would really impact the family dynamics. Not a bad thing, but a chance. Also because of the age gap you and your husband would have to divide yourselves between kids. A toddler and 10 year old can't/won't do the same activities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not selfish, but I don't think 2 is a "big" family either.

I think the people with 4+ kids are the selfish ones

Why? Having 4+ pretty much requires you to be selfLESS most of the time.

Because very few people have the financial resources to help 4+ kids pay for college, etc. Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe anyone has the time to give 4+ kids the attention they need to bring them up well.

The financial aspect is certainly worth considering, but the second part you state is total nonsense.

How do you give four kids the attention they each need every day except to say they don't need much 1-1 attention?

Many of the things that most of the parents I interact with talk about all the time over the years: sports on TV, Game of Thrones, the newest bar, etc are of little me. Channel that time and focus into activities with kids. You can probably reach a limit but we had two and then twins for 3 and 4 and there is no difference in your arbitrary “4 is too many.” I shudder to think of all the ways you must wast time to distract yourself from your own kids:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not selfish, but I don't think 2 is a "big" family either.

I think the people with 4+ kids are the selfish ones

Why? Having 4+ pretty much requires you to be selfLESS most of the time.

Because very few people have the financial resources to help 4+ kids pay for college, etc. Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe anyone has the time to give 4+ kids the attention they need to bring them up well.

The financial aspect is certainly worth considering, but the second part you state is total nonsense.

How do you give four kids the attention they each need every day except to say they don't need much 1-1 attention?

Anonymous wrote:Having 1 child is only selfish (or having any children is selfish) if you don't have a clear elder management plan for yourself and your spouse that does not involve your child ruining their life caring for you.

Eh. I’m the youngest of three. My siblings don’t do jack. Honestly having them around makes the elder care tasks harder.

Anonymous wrote:16:39 here and popped back to say I agree with 16:24 - having just one kid gives you more time to help out with activities. Which is how I ended up coaching 3 sports while leading a girl scout troop and holding a PTA officer position while working full-time. a little insane at times, but very rewarding and I got to know my child's friends more than I would have if I were simply dropping the kid off at practice and leaving to run errands.

16:24 here and yep, this is true. Both my spouse and I were able to be really involved with only-child DC's activities if we wanted that. And PP is right, we got to know DC's friends, classmates, scout troop members, etc., pretty well, which is helpful especially during middle and high school years.

Being able to be more involved is certainly not a reason to stick to having one child if you want more kids, but it is a benefit of having one child if that's what you want anyway. Yes, there are certainly parents of two or more kids out there who are very involved in activities--we should acknowledge that! It's just easier logistically with one, is all I'm saying.

16:39 here and popped back to say I agree with 16:24 - having just one kid gives you more time to help out with activities. Which is how I ended up coaching 3 sports while leading a girl scout troop and holding a PTA officer position while working full-time. a little insane at times, but very rewarding and I got to know my child's friends more than I would have if I were simply dropping the kid off at practice and leaving to run errands.

It's not selfish at all. If 1 kid works for you and for your family, stop at 1. I had always wanted 2 and for various reasons, ended up with 1. 1 works really well for me and my lifestyle and my daughter has gotten used to not having a sibling. And quarantine has been downright pleasant for me, whereas a lot of friends with 2-3 seem to be losing their minds just a bit.

Anonymous wrote:On the face of it, no it's not selfish.

But. I kind of do think it is selfish not to care what your husband wants.

OP, ignore the judgement above. It would be as easy to say your husband is selfish for not "caring" what you want.

PP, the OP clearly does care what her husband thinks or she would not be posting here at all. Just because she disagrees does not mean she doesn't care. Stop with the guilt-tripping.

To the OP:

The simple fact is: When it comes to having more children, "no" is the answer that always has to take precedence.

Here's why:

A "yes" means a new human being who can't be returned to the store. A "yes" cannot be undone and the result is for your lifetime (and the lifetime of your other child--you are making this choice not only for yourselves as parents but for your existing child and that child's lifetime, too). A "yes" also affects every aspect of your life, your DH's and your child's, from relationships to time to who really will bear most of the child-rearing work, to finances (yes, you have to be hard-nosed enough to think about the finances involved).

If your gut is saying life with one child is great, go with your gut. If your husband pressures you, get yourselves to couples counseling and get a neutral third party involved. There should be no pressure from either of you on anything as crucial as this.

As for the posts that say -- inevitably -- you'd be "giving your child a wonderful gift" or "only children are lonely when their parents are gone" etc. etc. , all that is rooted only in people's own experiences or their rosy, preconceived notions about sibling relationships. I find it pretty condescending when people tell parents that they somehow are doing wrong by their one child if they fail to provide another child as playmate, best friend forever, help and support in old age. Do those things all happen and they're fine? Sure. Can anyone guarantee it? Absolutely not. Should you let it make you feel you are denying your one child anything by not having more children? No.

Enjoy yourself as you have time to volunteer and be more truly involved at school and activities because you're not running around to multiple events for two (or more) kids.

Also, what's wrong with being selfish? I'm not saying OP is being selfish but is wanting time for yourself, to focus on things other than child-rearing, a less hectic lifestyle, etc., inherently bad? She has to get on the same page as her husband, but I find it strange how women are painted (and/or made to feel) negatively if they want only one or no children. Having children is as selfish an act as on its other face it is selfless. You could say OP's husband is selfish for projecting his perceived childhood loneliness on his current child and assuming that a sibling will fix this. That's about his feelings, not necessarily his kid's. I'm not saying it's not valid, but it's also selfish, and there's nothing wrong with it.

On the face of it, no it's not selfish.

But. I kind of do think it is selfish not to care what your husband wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:not selfish, but I don't think 2 is a "big" family either.

I think the people with 4+ kids are the selfish ones

Why? Having 4+ pretty much requires you to be selfLESS most of the time.

Because very few people have the financial resources to help 4+ kids pay for college, etc. Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe anyone has the time to give 4+ kids the attention they need to bring them up well.

The financial aspect is certainly worth considering, but the second part you state is total nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine how lonely only children are during this quarantine?

Don't need to. I have an only child. She's happy as a clam -- she loves having both of us home.