Disagreement about third child

In article , Rosalie B. says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer says...
lenny fackler wrote:

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and camping.

While that's certainly a valid choice, I don't think
flying with two is inherently impractical.

Yep - while it can be a *factor* in a decision (mostly if it's a serious
financial factor in a family where travel is very important, like a need to
return to a country of origin periodically) to limit a family size, this strikes
me as one of those truisms I hear about stuff like that. Like the "you can't
have two in diapers at the same time". Why the heck not? OK - it's a LOT of
diapers with two that age, but the overall number of parenting diaper-months is
compressed, there still will be the same cumilative number of diapers to raise
the kids, so what? But I hear it so often.

Yes I flew with 3, and did not stick to road trips and camping, even
with four. I once helped out a lady who had four children under four
(including twins). The thing my mom said to me was - you don't want
to have two in college at the same time.

That's another truism. Probably more true back in her day, when often one child
per family could make it to college.

But like the diaper thing - OK, if you're close to poverty line and the family
is holding down several jobs, the diaper expenses and/or efforts can put you
over the line, maybe it's true. But it depends very much on the particulars,
including the tempraments of the people involved.

Same thing with college, albeit on a bigger financial scale. OK - having one
set of college expenses at a time is easier to handle in many ways. But how
much weight that shoud get depends on the particulars of finances, willingness
to borrow, possibilites for aid (which may actually be *less* if it's only one
child at a time..) etc. Eighteen or twenty years hence from a decision
concerning childbearing - WHO KNOWS what the particulars may be. The more
immediate family factors should have enough weight to take precedence IMO;
things like immediate finances, age of parents (you can't get a large family
going with a four-year spacing if you're starting at 35!), desire for close
siblings, etc. etc.

Banty

In article ,
Banty wrote:

The main difference is that breaking up a marriage when there are NO
kids is between just two adults. Breaking up a marriage that already
has one or more kids because one of you wants MORE kids and one doesn't
has a negative effect on innocent children, so I'd be more inclined to
think that both have more of a moral obligation to find a way to resolve
this that does NOT end in divorce.


I agree it's different in that way.

But would you see a difference if it were a disagreement over a *second*, vs.
a
third?

No. Once there is a child involved -- one, two or ten, it doesn't
matter -- I think the situation is different. I am increasingly
distressed at the number of people who are readily willing to end a
marriage that includes children. The needs of the living child or
children need to come into play.


Like I said before, a breakup over this probably stems from overall serious
issues which would have driven this kind of disagreement. But I don't think
this idea that, since the socially-expected life-script of two kids are
already
met, the desire for a third shouldn't be taken very very seriously, is a
valid.
Or even if the disagreement is over having a second, the idea that once one
is a
parent, that should be 'enough' to settle for necessarily.

My SIL wanted lots of kids, my brother did not want any. My brother
"allowed" her to have one (they are very conservative, fundamentalist
Christians, and my SIL's vow to "obey" is one she takes seriously.)
I've always felt bad for SIL over that -- but also think it is something
they should have settled BEFORE they got married, since it turns out
they both felt the way they did from before the time they got married.
However, this is an issue between the two of them. On the flip side,
their son married a young woman who ALSO wants at least six kids, but my
nephew is OK with it. Initially, she wanted six spaced VERY closely --
but after the second one was born, decided more time between was a good
idea. The first was born about the time she turned 19 (and ten months
after they got married), and is now 3-1/2; they are expecting their
third this summer, and I know she wants more after that. I would never
minimize her desire for more kids, no matter how many they already have.

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are issues
between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that breaking up a
child's home (thus hurting the child or children you already have)
because of this particular disagreement is a Bad Thing.


As a single parent by chioce, I was for some time on a mail list for single
mothers by choice. One of the great frustrations shared by other SMC's is
that
there is this strong idea out there that, even if people are very supportive
of
a prospective single parent for *one* child, they oppose plans to add to the
family to have *two* children. Like it is somehow over the line or asking
too
much of life. Even if the resources and time is there for that. As if we've
already taken some Big Social Allowance and we should not get 'greedy' about
it.

In my case, for practical reasons (mostly having to do with my temprament) I
decided to stay with one. But the desire for more than one child is very
real
and strong for many, and to dismiss that because someone is already a parent
is
belittling.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady says...

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are issues
between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that breaking up a
child's home (thus hurting the child or children you already have)
because of this particular disagreement is a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a dog doesn't do.
So who wins?

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article
,
dragonlady says...

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are
issues
between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that breaking up
a
child's home (thus hurting the child or children you already have)
because of this particular disagreement is a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a dog
doesn't do.
So who wins?

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.

Beth

wrote in message
ups.com...
Banty wrote:
In article
,
dragonlady says...

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are
issues between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that
breaking up a child's home (thus hurting the child or children
you already have) because of this particular disagreement is
a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a dog
doesn't do. So who wins?

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.

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?
--
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)

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
lenny fackler wrote:

One didn't slow us too much. With two, flying became impractical.
Since then we've stuck to low key road trips to the beach and
camping.

While that's certainly a valid choice, I don't think
flying with two is inherently impractical. We just flew with
three (10, 7, 20 months) and it was fine. And we went on
vacation in a city, spending our time doing mostly museums and
eating out and such. I really think this is a situation were
it's a matter of what you want to do rather than an inherent
limitation (well, except for the finances--it's certainly more
expensive to fly a family of five).

As far as the practicality of flying, the cost of an extra seat is a
factor. Lugging all of the stuff is a factor. The quality of time
spent at a travel destination and the value of the experience for a 4
and 2 year old are factors. But you're right those are all things that
may or may not make any difference to other families.

My experience is that
it just isn't as bad as most assume.
I'm not trying to talk you into a 3rd kid--that's
obviously between you and your wife.

Seems like everyone I know who has 3 kids _does_ try to talk us into
it. I'm not buying it. I think it's a trick ;-)

I only suggest that
three (or more) children may not be as limiting to others
as you seem to suggest. We chose three kids, but we didn't
feel a need to stop flying, going on vacations, going out
to eat, etc.
There are certainly lots of life changing
elements, but for us, with kids who are 10, 7.5, and
nearing 2 years old, it's really the older kids that
dictate our lifestyle far more than the youngest. She
just gets schlepped around a lot ;-) It's the older
kids' school schedules and activities that affect what
we can do more.

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.

As far as babysitting goes, we're blessed with
local family who are very helpful, but we also have
taken the lead to find other sitting options so that
we're not dependent on family. What has worked out
very well for us has been setting up a neighborhood
babysitting co-op. Free, experienced babysitters on
tap--who could ask for more?! ;-)

Like you, we don't want to depend on family. We never ask them to keep
the kids but sometimes they ask to. And trust me they asked a lot less
when we had our second. We paid someone (a woman who was used and
recommended by family members) one time so that we could go out and we
were both so uneasy about the whole thing that we never did it again.



Best wishes,
Ericka

Banty wrote:
In article
,
dragonlady says...

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are issues
between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that breaking up a
child's home (thus hurting the child or children you already have)
because of this particular disagreement is a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a dog
doesn't do. So who wins?

Banty

I'm in 100% agreement with Dragonlady. I'm surprised that so many people
are identifying with the needs of the mother's longing for more children but
so few people are concerned with the children already here.

Both parents can't win. Someone either has to give in and get past it (with
counseling if necessary), give in and not get past it - which may end the
marriage at some future point, or both parents 'win' through separation but
the marriage and current children lose.

I would never stay married to a man that didn't want any children and I did.
If I already had one child, I can't imagine leaving that child's father over
the issue of hypothetical future children. There are certainly situations
in which I would leave the father of my children...but the issue of more
children would not be one of them once we got past the first..no matter how
much I wanted another.

On the flip side I can't imagine making my husband live with such grief for
the rest of our married life either. I'd agree to more children, even if I
felt done, before I could stand to see someone live with such a sorrow.

--
Nikki

"lenny fackler" wrote in message
oups.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?

My experience is that
it just isn't as bad as most assume.
I'm not trying to talk you into a 3rd kid--that's
obviously between you and your wife.

Seems like everyone I know who has 3 kids _does_ try to talk us into
it. I'm not buying it. I think it's a trick ;-)

Nah, it's not a trick. And we're not trying to talk you into it. We're just
saying that some of the drawbacks people often express about having three
kids are not necessarily borne out by our experiences.
--
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)

"Nikki" wrote in message
...
Banty wrote:
In article
,
dragonlady says...
I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are issues
between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that breaking up a
child's home (thus hurting the child or children you already have)
because of this particular disagreement is a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a dog
doesn't do. So who wins?

I'm in 100% agreement with Dragonlady. I'm surprised that so many people
are identifying with the needs of the mother's longing for more children
but
so few people are concerned with the children already here.

Well, I don't think anyone is saying that the existing children shouldn't or
don't factor into the equation. Or even that breaking up a marriage over
something like this is a Good Thing. I personally agree that it is a Very
Bad Thing. But that doesn't mean I can't see how or why such a disagreement
could lead to the dissolution of a marriage, even one with children already
in it.

snip

On the flip side I can't imagine making my husband live with such grief
for
the rest of our married life either. I'd agree to more children, even if
I
felt done, before I could stand to see someone live with such a sorrow.

Well, that's exactly it. If one spouse's desire for another child is so
profound that not fulfilling it makes her or her deeply unhappy, how does a
loving spouse justify continuing to hold the line in the face of that
unhappiness?
--
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)

Circe wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Banty wrote:
In article
,
dragonlady says...

I always take the desire to have kids seriously, but these are
issues between the two adults, and I feel pretty strongly that
breaking up a child's home (thus hurting the child or children
you already have) because of this particular disagreement is
a Bad Thing.

OK, but then someone has to 'win'. There's no half-child, and a
dog
doesn't do. So who wins?

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. I don't know, it'd be a
very difficult situation.

Beth