Disagreement about third child

lenny fackler wrote:

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.

That was certainly our perspective. We had our first two
in 1995 and 1997. We thought about a third off and on, but really
didn't feel ready for it until 2002 (and had #3 in 2003). There's
no comparison between having a toddler and a baby and having two
school-aged kids and a baby ;-) The older kids are a *huge* help,
and they don't need anywhere near the amount of hands on care that
a toddler needs. Adding baby #3 was waaaaaaaay easier than #2
(the hardest for us) or even #1 (which wasn't bad at all).
Travelling is easy as well. We had two parents to wrangle the
toddler, but the older kids amuse themselves (and often their
baby sister) and even haul their own gear. It's just a very
different ballgame, and for us it's been a lot of fun. That
doesn't mean it would be (or should be) everyone's cup of tea,
but I know my husband was *highly* skeptical of a third when
#2 was a toddler, but was happily on board when we decided to
go for #3, and has been happy with the decision since, even
though #3 is a real ball of fire.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Circe" wrote in message
news:Wwe7e.7339$%c1.4794@fed1read05...
"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,

Er, that should have read "despite little evidence"...
--
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:

"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 us, it depends on the availability of laundry services.
For carry-ons, the boys are each allowed a small backpack for their
snacks and on-board entertainment. DH carries the diaper backpack.
I carry a bag with Everything Else (travel documents, meds, a book,
camera, laptop, etc.). Our checked luggage is one bag for me, DH,
and the toddler. The boys each have a small, wheeled bag for their
stuff (when they have their own, they take better care of their stuff
and don't trash our clothing ;-) Our checked bag gets bigger or
smaller depending on the season, the availability of laundry
facilities, the length of the stay, and whether we're transporting
things like gifts or other goodies in addition to clothing. Thus,
when we're on the move fully loaded, the older boys each pull their
own bag plus their backpacks, one parent has a backpack and a
toddler (likely in a small stroller), and the other parent has
a somewhat larger wheeled bag and a medium-sized carryon bag
perched on top. It's quite reasonable and we can hike a ways if
we have to.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
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 us, it depends on the availability of laundry services.

When I book places for us to stay in Europe, I usually won't rent a place
unless it comes with a washing machine. This last time, we considered taking
the clothes to a fluff-and-fold place because it was cold and things weren't
drying (dryers being virtually unheard of in private residences in Europe),
but wound up being able to manage doing it ourselves.

When we were in Mexico, we *did* use a laundry service after we'd been there
about 6 days because we didn't have a washer in our townhouse. Being in
Mexico, it was very inexpensive (I think it was less than 20 dollars to do
almost a week's worth of laundry for 8 people). I had to have a few things
washed by the hotel in Mexico City because of the stomach bug we got, but it
was no problem.

I recall when my husband and I went to Spain in 1994, we stopped in a
laundromat once and did our laundry.

IOW, I've never had a problem finding laundry facilities when/if I needed
them. So I just *plan* when packing to need them and figure the rest will
fall into place!
--
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 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??

I just don't see it as symmetrical at all. It's symmetrical when it
comes to the needs and emotions of the adults; this adult desperately
wants another child, this adult very much doesn't, but that's not all
there is to it. The non-symmetrical part is that the child-wanting
spouse is asking the other to make a huge, lifelong commitment to a
third person, which isn't breakable even if the marriage dissolves in
the future for unrelated reasons, or, hell, even if the child-wanting
spouse *dies*.

I don't think the status quo always trumps, because sometimes the
status quo is bad or at least less than optimal. The thing about
having kids that puts it in a special category for me is that there is
just no undoing the alteration if it turns out not to be a good idea,
and that a third, innocent person will bear the consquences if things
go poorly. If the proposed change to the status quo is moving to
another faraway country, one could always move back. If it's a
proposed change in lifestyle, one could always return to the old way.
If it's a child, that's that.

Beth

In article ,
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


The kids who still have their parents living together.


One of the things I learned a long time ago is that in a loving
relationship, if a dispute ends up with a "winner", in the long run both
lose.

There IS no winner between the parents -- either way, one of them
doesn't get what they completely want. However, grownups find ways to
deal with the disappointments in life -- IMHO, they should be more
concerned about how it effects the kids they already have, and finding a
way to stay together AND manage to be content with whatever decision is
made -- with the help, perhaps, of some significant counseling --
matters more than anything else.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article 04d7e.7320$%c1.789@fed1read05, "Circe"
wrote:

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?
--

Or, in our case, twins happen, too.

(I wanted 2 or 3, DH wanted 1 or 2, we agreed on 2 -- but got 3 anyway.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article . com,
" wrote:

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?

Well I DID know I guy (I'll decline to call him a friend) who left his
wife WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL following sugery to remove her uterus
due to cancer, because he wanted children and she couldn't have them
now....
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

dragonlady wrote:
In article . com,
" wrote:

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?

Well I DID know I guy (I'll decline to call him a friend) who left
his
wife WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL following sugery to remove her
uterus
due to cancer, because he wanted children and she couldn't have them
now....

Bleah.

Well, I guess it does happen, but I bet it's rarer.

Beth

In article cCe7e.7340$%c1.3184@fed1read05,
"Circe" wrote:

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
Never mind the every lovin carryons. Thats what bothers me.


And just for the opposite point of view: after numerous checked-baggage
disasters, including one where our suitcase was eaten by a
baggage-handling machine, and MOST of our stuff - though not quite all
of it - showed up filthy, in a garbage bag, I have sworn NEVER to check
a bag again. If it doesn't fit into our allotted carry-ons, it stays
home.


Jeanne