Disagreement about third child

Melania wrote:
Then again, I know a family with 3 kids that globetrots with apparent
ease all the time - the big thing there, though, is that the older
two
are five years older than the youngest. I think that age gap makes it
easier to handle. I've seen families flying with a 4yo, 2yo, and baby
-
they're not usually having much fun!!


That's a good point. My attitute towards having a 3rd child and
traveling with them could change when my two get a bit older and can
better occupy themselves.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Circe wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
The person who doesn't want the child wins, because it's an
irrevocable committment to a third party, and I don't think
that should ever be undertaken unwillingly.

And I say this as the person who wants the child.

I think there's general agreement that the "No" in this case wins.
But that "win" may be an overall loss to the relationship that
ultimately destroys it.

I've seen it happen, so I know it can. I'm on the side of those who
think that breaking up a family w/child(ren) which is otherwise okay
over this is somewhat selfish, because the existing child or children
can be hurt.

I tend to agree. On the other hand, the unwillingness of one spouse to have
more children when the other spouse deeply desires it is also a form of
selfishness. (Which is not to say that the spouse who wants more children is
any more or less selfish, by the way.)

On the other hand, I can see how a disagreement at this
fundamental a level could severely shake one's relationship with a
spouse, so that by the time the situation came to a head it wasn't
'just' about more children.

Right. It becomes more about the inability of the spouses to meet one
another's needs and desires.

IOW, would someone who would leave a
spouse because the spouse declined to have more kids also leave the
spouse if the spouse was UNABLE to have more kids? I suspect not in
many cases, which leads me to believe it's not just about the # of
children, it's about other stuff too.

I think the difference between infertility and a deliberate choice not to
have more children is that the infertile spouse is not *deliberately*
refusing to fulfill the other spouse's desires. Even so, secondary
infertility can place a strain on a marriage that could ultimately lead to
its demise, just as primary infertility can. Moreover, in the case of
secondary infertility, the couple may have other options for expanding the
family (e.g. adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy) and precisely
because the problem is not one spouse's *objection* to having more children.

Note that many people who *plan* to have only X number of kids wind
up with an extra quite by accident. Contraceptive failures *do* happen.
In such a situation (an existing, unplanned pregnancy), should the "No"
still win?

Much harder.

I agree.

My cop-out would be to say that I generally believe that
any couple having sex, married or unmarried, ought to have an
agreed-upon plan about what they'd do if this happened. I do know
though that it's easier to agree with something in the abstract than it
is to carry through with it when it happens.

I also agree.

Also, of course, by the
time there's an actual pregnancy we're not dealing with a nice neutral
'spouse' wanting one thing or another, the woman has the ultimate
choice because it's all going on in her body.

Again, I agree. However, I'd say that if the spouse who wants the baby is
the husband, a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy against his wishes
could very well spell the end of the marriage. Similarly, if a woman felt
forced by her husband to have a termination when that was not what she
really wanted, I think the marriage is like to be on very unsteady ground
afterwards.

By contrast, I know quite a number of families with one or more "surprise"
children. I've rarely seen a marriage break-up because an unplanned baby
came along, even when one of the spouses was previously adamant about not
wanting to have any more children.

Of course, people generally don't admit to having terminated an unplanned
pregnancy, so it is difficult to say how those marriages typically turn out.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

"lenny fackler" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not so much that your activities are limited, for me it's that I
feel stifled by the round the clock attention that a baby needs. It's
not as enjoyable to me to visit a big city or eat at nice restaurants
when my attention is constantly focused on the needs of my child. I
don't want to go through another couple of years of that. I'm just
beginning to feel some breathing room. Our kids have some independence
now. They play with each other. Sunday after breakfast we sent them
up to their rooms to play and I sipped coffee and did the crossword for
maybe 30 minutes. Those kinds of moments are actually not too uncommon
lately and I value them.

I hear ya! Some of my reluctance to have another child despite the nagging
feeling that someone's still "missing" from our family is related to the
fact that we're just now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in terms
of potty training and general dependency.

OTOH, if I had known how much of my brain cells homework would consume in
the K-2 years (to say nothing of afterwards), I might well have stopped at
two! I'd take several more years of infancy/toddlerhood and its attendant
neediness over homework battles any day of the week. A far bigger part of
the reason I think I'm done with three is that, while I'm sure homework with
three will tax me plenty, I'm pretty sure that homework with four would
outright kill me g!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

In article HHd7e.7330$%c1.314@fed1read05, Circe says...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
The person who doesn't want the child wins, because it's an
irrevocable committment to a third party, and I don't think
that should ever be undertaken unwillingly.

And I say this as the person who wants the child.

I think there's general agreement that the "No" in this case wins.
But that "win" may be an overall loss to the relationship that
ultimately destroys it.

I've seen it happen, so I know it can. I'm on the side of those who
think that breaking up a family w/child(ren) which is otherwise okay
over this is somewhat selfish, because the existing child or children
can be hurt.

I tend to agree. On the other hand, the unwillingness of one spouse to have
more children when the other spouse deeply desires it is also a form of
selfishness. (Which is not to say that the spouse who wants more children is
any more or less selfish, by the way.)

Right. I perceive that the onus is being put on the spouse wanting more
children; I think it's close to symmetrical. The spouse NOT wanting a third,
going through the process of a divorce, breaking up a family for the existing
kids, rather than having a third child - how is it he or she is any less at
fault??



On the other hand, I can see how a disagreement at this
fundamental a level could severely shake one's relationship with a
spouse, so that by the time the situation came to a head it wasn't
'just' about more children.

Right. It becomes more about the inability of the spouses to meet one
another's needs and desires.

Yep. But my main point I'm trying to make is that this notion that one or the
other position should be trump does not help, and may resonate with a
fundamental problem with the marriage.



Again, I agree. However, I'd say that if the spouse who wants the baby is
the husband, a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy against his wishes
could very well spell the end of the marriage. Similarly, if a woman felt
forced by her husband to have a termination when that was not what she
really wanted, I think the marriage is like to be on very unsteady ground
afterwards.

By contrast, I know quite a number of families with one or more "surprise"
children. I've rarely seen a marriage break-up because an unplanned baby
came along, even when one of the spouses was previously adamant about not
wanting to have any more children.

Ditto.

And this is a good point - if there is to be no more children, ever, or goodbye
- does this mean a change in BC method, if so by whom, and is one or the other
willing to live with the backup plan of termination? Implementing that finality
can be problematic.

People tend to want to give the status quo the default, expecting justification
from the partner that wants a change. But life brings changes - overall the
health of the marriage is better met by the willingness to meet change.

Banty

Circe wrote:
"lenny fackler" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not so much that your activities are limited, for me it's that
I
feel stifled by the round the clock attention that a baby needs.
It's
not as enjoyable to me to visit a big city or eat at nice
restaurants
when my attention is constantly focused on the needs of my child.
I
don't want to go through another couple of years of that. I'm just
beginning to feel some breathing room. Our kids have some
independence
now. They play with each other. Sunday after breakfast we sent
them
up to their rooms to play and I sipped coffee and did the crossword
for
maybe 30 minutes. Those kinds of moments are actually not too
uncommon
lately and I value them.

I hear ya! Some of my reluctance to have another child despite the
nagging
feeling that someone's still "missing" from our family is related to
the
fact that we're just now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in
terms
of potty training and general dependency.

OTOH, if I had known how much of my brain cells homework would
consume in
the K-2 years (to say nothing of afterwards), I might well have
stopped at
two! I'd take several more years of infancy/toddlerhood and its
attendant
neediness over homework battles any day of the week. A far bigger
part of
the reason I think I'm done with three is that, while I'm sure
homework with
three will tax me plenty, I'm pretty sure that homework with four
would
outright kill me g!
--

Homework battles in k-2? yikes. Something to look forward to I guess.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:15:50 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

"lenny fackler" wrote in message
roups.com...
As far as the practicality of flying, the cost of an extra seat is a
factor. Lugging all of the stuff is a factor.

Of course, you don't necessarily have to lug that much stuff. On our last
trip, for a family of five for 13 days, we checked two pieces of luggage
(one medium and one small wheeled suitcase) and carried one backpack with
food, one carry-on bag with the medicine and diapers/clothing change for the
flight, one bag of books, the camera bag, and my purse. That's it. On the
way back, we checked the medicine bag through since losing it wasn't a
concern coming back.

I'm constantly amazed by how much *adults* pack just for themselves for a
relatively short trip. I saw adult couples checking twice as much baggage as
we did for roughly the same amount of time. Haven't people ever heard of
DOING LAUNDRY?

Never mind the every lovin carryons. Thats what bothers me. Adn yes,
when we traveled with baby ,we usually took one suiitcase, two at the
most and then a backpack. once children could walk and chew gun so to
speak, each child is responsible for thier own stuff and have the
smallest sized wheeled carryon.

Barb

"lenny fackler" wrote in message
oups.com...
Circe wrote:
OTOH, if I had known how much of my brain cells homework would
consume in the K-2 years (to say nothing of afterwards), I might well
have stopped at two! I'd take several more years of infancy/
toddlerhood and its attendant neediness over homework battles any
day of the week.

Homework battles in k-2? yikes. Something to look forward to I guess.

Well, I gather that many kids do their homework without much complaint; I
just didn't happen to get those kids!

Notwithstanding, homework is increasingly popular for very young children.
Both of my school-aged children had homework from the very first day of
kindergarten. Unfortunately, despite much evidence to support the notion
that homework improves performance for kids in K-3, many parents believe
that their school is more rigorous and "better" if children get homework
early and often. And schools support thise notion not only by assigning it
to the very young, but by promoting the notion that it improves performance,
fosters parental involvement, and instills good work habits. (IME, it
doesn't instill good work habits, but instead teaches kids to rely on their
parents to ensure their homework gets done because when they first get
homework in kindergarten, they *can't* do it without parental help.)

Sorry, side rant unrelated to the topic at hand. Of course, you could luck
out and your kids could attend a school that hasn't subscribed to this
nonsense or your kids could be perfectly happy to do their homework. But be
prepared anyway, just in case...
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

On 13 Apr 2005 11:05:09 -0700, "lenny fackler"
wrote:



It's not so much that your activities are limited, for me it's that I
feel stifled by the round the clock attention that a baby needs. It's
not as enjoyable to me to visit a big city or eat at nice restaurants
when my attention is constantly focused on the needs of my child. I
don't want to go through another couple of years of that. I'm just
beginning to feel some breathing room. Our kids have some independence
now. They play with each other. Sunday after breakfast we sent them
up to their rooms to play and I sipped coffee and did the crossword for
maybe 30 minutes. Those kinds of moments are actually not too uncommon
lately and I value them.

I have got to tell you, I would think it much easier to go to a
restaurant with a baby than say a toddler or preschooler. All you have
to do with the baby is either feed her or hold her, or perhaps travel
to the back of the room and change.

Preschoolers and toddlers must be amused during the waiting time, and
although I did go out with all of my kids at that age, a fair amount
of time was spent on lessons learned if you will (dont throw your food
on the floor, talk softly, here, play with the crayons and paper and
so on and so forth)

Barb


Like you, we don't want to depend on family. We never ask them to keep

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
Never mind the every lovin carryons. Thats what bothers me. Adn yes,
when we traveled with baby ,we usually took one suiitcase, two at the
most and then a backpack. once children could walk and chew gun so to
speak, each child is responsible for thier own stuff and have the
smallest sized wheeled carryon.

I'd love to get away with fewer carry-ons, but I dare not check the medicine
(I have prescription stuff that I'd be in trouble without), I won't check
the cameras for obvious reasons, and we have to bring food because these
days, the US carriers no longer feed you on domestic flights. (A 5-6 hour
flight without food with kids? Forget about it!)

I do have the bigger kids help carry the carry-ons, though. And we did have
the stroller, so we hung some of them on it when we were walking in the
airport. Four carry-ons among five people doesn't seem excessive to me.

Ideally, I'd pack all of our clothing for *everyone* in a single checked
piece of luggage. I couldn't do that this time, though, because the
youngest's diapers take up too much space. Next year, when he's potty
trained, I fully expect to check one, medium-sized wheeled suitcase for all
of us.

For me, the checked stuff is important because you have to lug it around
*after* you arrive. The food backpack is basically empty by the time we
arrive at our destination, so we're really down to five pieces of luggage by
the time we get where we're going.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article HHd7e.7330$%c1.314@fed1read05, Circe says...
I tend to agree. On the other hand, the unwillingness of one spouse to
have
more children when the other spouse deeply desires it is also a form of
selfishness. (Which is not to say that the spouse who wants more children
is
any more or less selfish, by the way.)

Right. I perceive that the onus is being put on the spouse wanting more
children; I think it's close to symmetrical. The spouse NOT wanting a
third,
going through the process of a divorce, breaking up a family for the
existing
kids, rather than having a third child - how is it he or she is any less
at
fault??

An excellent point.

People tend to want to give the status quo the default, expecting
justification
from the partner that wants a change. But life brings changes - overall
the
health of the marriage is better met by the willingness to meet change.


Indeed, the only thing certain besides death and taxes is change.

Though art a wise woman, Banty. I am awed.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Mr. Congeniality (7), the Diva (5) and the Race Car Fanatic (3)

I have PMS and ESP...I'm the bitch who knows everything! (T-shirt slogan)