# Kids- how many are enough? (not whether to start)



## Betsy Og (30 Sep 2010)

Think we had the 'whether to have any' debate a while back. But assuming you've started how do you know when to stop? We've 2 and as neither of us want big gaps its getting to decision time about #3 or leave it at 2 (biological clock issues are a while away yet so that not a factor).

The answer I'm looking for is not necessarily a number but what things to consider.

*Pal/Not an only child*: So starting with 1, most people would like a pal for them -tick. So that gets you to 2. Go to 3?

*Extreme view on the Pal point*: Have a 3rd in case anything happens one so you'll have 2 anyway. Bit extreme for me.

*Three's a crowd*: Two of the 3 will get on better together and the 3rd, likely the oldest or the youngest, will be left out. Also theres the phonomenon of the "middle child" having a tougher time.

*Cos they're gorgeous*: Dont you adore every one of them and more kids means more joy & fun  (that argument, while hard to argue with, would have you with as many as physically possible, in which case the fun might wear out!!)

*Gender Balancing*: we've 2 boys so people might say it would be nice to have a girl, I can see that but not enough of a reason for me, I could be just as happy with another boy.

*Workload*: Wife minds the 2, neither at big school yet, so she's wavering and is kinda thinking that she's enough work in 2 and its easy for me be dreaming of a 3rd, I wont end up doing all the work. As an aside, what % of the vote should go to the mother (if its not a nonsensical comment/query)? 50/50? Presuming no-one would say she should have it against her will, how much say should her husband have?, I'd say its 70% mother, 30% father.

*Financial:* I've seen it written a few times, beware of overproviding for your kids. All the same I'd like to be able to make sure they had been given every chance along the way and that you could provide a safety net if destitution loomed in the future. So adding more decreases the scope for safety nets for all (see more re Future Health - Genetic Issues).

*Birth Defect*: There are many awful things that could happen, and while the odds are low and it shouldnt deter starting at all, you now have 2 healthy boys and why would you be tempting fate? (Before anyone freaks out I'm not saying you wont love that child just as much & do everything for them etc., but given the choice I doubt anyone would elect for such a circumstance).

*Future Health - Genetic Issues*: Something only those it affects would probably think about. So on my side bi-polar runs in the family. On a pure numbers game the more you have the more chance one of them will have it. OK treatment is getting better, you might already have the 2 that have it and the 3rd wont. Probably not a huge factor except that it "ups the ante" on the financial risk side, theres a real chance that they may not be able to have well paying careers, so providing them with safety nets isnt a pure theoretical thing. 

*Why you'd be reluctant to go beyond 3*: Car manufacturers conspiracy, you'd have to get a momma wagon.

*Save the Overpopulated Planet*: One book I read said dont have more than 2 or you're adding to the problem. I dont subscribe to that, living longer is probably more of a factor in population growth so should we have compulsory culling? and Ireland is not overpopulated and, as Bill Cullen might say "Dont gimme dat about der been 1 planeh, we're only livin in bleedin Oir-landth".

*Save the pension schemes*: With the aging population living longer we'll need 47 people working to keep you in a pension, so how are your 47 coming along? (ok the figures are in jest but basically Ireland, and more particularly Europe, needs more taxpaying workers - heard there's a few extra folks in India & China if you let them in......)

Any other perspectives out there? 

(If its of any relevance in these matters - & no doubt there's a womens magazine article that claims it explains everything - I'm youngest of 3, she youngest of 4), & if I had to bet as to what we'll decide (or will be decided ) I'd suspect it'll be leaving it at 2.


----------



## z107 (30 Sep 2010)

Ireland may not be overpopulated, but we are using far more than our fair share of Earth's resources.
I don't think the Genetic problems thing is quite correct. If child births are independent, then the odds of having a problem are the same for each birth. (like flicking a coin - it's always 50/50, regardless of having 5 heads in a row)


----------



## Betsy Og (30 Sep 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Ireland may not be overpopulated, but we are using far more than our fair share of Earth's resources.
> I don't think the Genetic problems thing is quite correct. If child births are independent, then the odds of having a problem are the same for each birth. (like flicking a coin - it's always 50/50, regardless of having 5 heads in a row)



True, but if you're trying to avoid, say, "heads" then the more times you flick the coin the better your chances of "heads" coming up at least once


----------



## z107 (30 Sep 2010)

Well, yes Betsy good point. If you don't flick the coin at all.


----------



## thedaras (30 Sep 2010)

Three is the straw that breaks the camels back, that's what I was told when I had two, I didn't take any notice and went on to have number three.

Small things like ,most holidays are for 2 plus two.
Hotel rooms take two plus two.
An extra suitcase in the car,could mean you need to hire a bigger car when abroad.

You could end up with three different collection times ,from schools.Which means its hardly worth your while to go home after collecting the first one, especially if you are any distance from the school,so end up trying to keep number one amused until number two gets out and numbers one and two amused while waiting for number three.

It can be stressful having three doing homework.,three asking questions,three waiting for a bathroom.

Three in the back of the car can be a nightmare..as they would be seated very close to each other,as opposed to two who can sit at opposite sides.

Three to pay for after school activity ,three to buy food,clothes ,books,have birthday party's and friends over and then three teenagers.

Three for the baby sitter which is obviously more expensive plus it takes longer to get three settled than two ,and more chance of the babysitter phoning you to come home.

Three to find a minder for or a family member who can take them in an emergency,this can be a lot of hassle as a lot of friends and family have already got a child or two and at least if you have two they are more willing to give a hand out,and have room for them in their car.
Not to mention, communions ,confirmations ,debs etc..

If I had my time back I think I would stick at two,for my own peace of mind,and for their future, especially the way the country is at the moment.But its easy for me to say that as I already have three.
I don't regret it and I'm sure you wouldn't either,But as I said if I had my time back...

Thats my tuppence worth ,for what its worth..
Best wishes with whatever decision you both come too.


----------



## Caveat (1 Oct 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> Have a 3rd in case anything happens one so you'll have 2 anyway.


 
LOL - like a spare child?


----------



## Shawady (1 Oct 2010)

We have two and our third baby is due this month.
I would agree with some of what thedaras has said regards the logistics of having 3 children over 2. I can see it will make things like holidays, school runs etc a bit more hectic.
However, one of my colleagues said something to me recently that struck a chord. He has 2 children that are now young adults. He said when they were younger, 2 was the perfect number of children but now they are older he is sorry he did not have more children for their sake. Just so they could have more siblings when they are adults.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Oct 2010)

Shawady said:


> He said when they were younger, 2 was the perfect number of children but now they are older he is sorry he did not have more children for their sake. Just so they could have more siblings when they are adults.


 
Not sure on that one, I like the "one big happy gang" thing, but I'd see that as applying more when they are younger. After finish secondary and they move out then many siblings more or less go their own way, different colleges in different cities, different jobs, different partners (unless you were with da genderal ) and if they had 1 or 4 siblings it wouldnt make much odds at that stage. Depends on the family/individuals I suppose, but hard to know in advance.


----------



## z104 (1 Oct 2010)

Have none and help out with your brothers , sisters or neighbours child.

Adopt before having your own.Plenty of children of there that need a good home.


----------



## JP1234 (1 Oct 2010)

I can't imagine having more than the one I have. Though OH has said a few times he would have liked more, we never really discussed it. There were a couple of times I thought I was pregnant, but I honestly wasn't disappointed when it was a false alarm

I am one of 6, yet I haven't spoken to 2 of my brothers in years and barely speak to my sisters or other brother. No falling out, our lives just went off in different directions.

My younger sister is about to have her 4th, I think she is mad, particularly as her eldest just turned 18, there will also be a 10 year age gap between her current youngest and the new baby.

Psrsonally I have never regretted not having more, as much as I love my son I was glad to get the years of just doing the shopping turning into a military operation. Also with things the way there are now I wouldn't want the added stress of providing for another person.


----------



## Shawady (1 Oct 2010)

I read something a while back that couples that have a 3rd baby should be frowned upon in the same manner as people that drive gas guzzling cars, because of the effect it will have on the enviroment.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Oct 2010)

Shawady said:


> I read something a while back that couples that have a 3rd baby should be frowned upon in the same manner as people that drive gas guzzling cars, because of the effect it will have on the enviroment.


 
There are many things that have a more negative effect on the environment, its all about choices. What about all the environmental damage done by building a motorway - land destruction, cement manufacture etc etc?, but yet we chose to build them because the benefit outweighs the cost. 

Unless you're doing specific to help the environment then chances are whatever you are doing is damaging it, so should we do nothing for fear of damaging the environment???

Theres also an element of the flip side of personal responsibility, the usual problem is no-one takes any responsibility, but theres a new strain of "You, alone, should rights the wrongs of the planet, so you must take all dis-proportionate measures because it all helps". Flip that, if you want more kids then have them, because thats important, thats worth it. By all means choose a less gas guzzling car, fly less (or not at all) etc. etc., all "realisitic" choices where the "cost" is acceptable. 

A bit like the Kyoto thing, Ireland lashing itselfs because of CO2 emmissions is next to pointless unless and until all major polluters (China, India etc) are doing something about it, until then Irelands "sacrifice" is immaterial to the problem and is just another unnecessary cost (like we need that), and putting us at a competitive disadvantage to others. Rant over.


----------



## TarfHead (1 Oct 2010)

Once there's more of them than of ye  !

And, with more than two, it must get harder to treat your favourite child preferentially  !

Gaps in age has to be considered side by side with this. Three or more seperated by a year or thereabouts each would, I imagine, be 'easier' to manage that, say, 10, 8 & 3.


----------



## DB74 (1 Oct 2010)

I have 2 kids.

Some weeks, on the days when they are not too much trouble, I hanker for a 3rd.

On the other 6 days I curse the day I met their mother!


----------



## Staples (1 Oct 2010)

Shawady said:


> but now they are older he is sorry he did not have more children for their sake.


 

Why?  Have they nobody else they could fall out with?


----------



## fizzelina (1 Oct 2010)

I'm one of 7 and now that we are all grown up (almost, the youngest is 10 then it's ages 21-35) it is so nice to have each other, as friends and companions and there to chat, we live near enough to each other, pop in and out of our parent's home and visit each other's homes and ring each other. I really love having a large family (2 youngest were adopted) and I love them all for different reasons (one of my sisters is genuinely the funniest person I know and a real pick me up). 
Although I know when my OH and I decide to have some that 2 will be plenty for all the reasons outlined above by thedaras. For us it's not the number of children but the "when to start" that's the issue. Right now it'd be tough to give up my freedom / holidays without a junior coming along/ quiet weekend afternoons reading the paper......I presume in time that I wouldn't mind trading that in. I'll spend the next 5 years anyway just us two.


----------



## z107 (1 Oct 2010)

> Adopt before having your own.Plenty of childeren of there that need a good home.


I was under the impression it was extremely difficult to adopt in Ireland. One couple I know of have spent thousands of euros and years trying to adopt from all these different countries, so far without success.

I don't have any personal experience of it though.


----------



## Henny Penny (1 Oct 2010)

When we only had 1 we competed for her affection ... Now we have 2 it's me and mr hp united against the common enemy ( the smalls) ... Would happily fill the house with little ones ... But you get what heaven sends!


----------



## michaelm (1 Oct 2010)

Betsy Og said:


> The answer I'm looking for is not necessarily a number but what things to consider.


IMHO, to give children siblings is a great thing.  Unless the mother is over 35 or the parents are predisposed to genetic issues then birth defects are not really a factor.  The overpopulation/environmental argument is a nonsense.  Ireland is sparsely populated and we need a average of 2.1 children per woman over her lifetime just to maintain the indigenous population.  I'm not confident in pensions, ultimately you may have to rely on your children for support.  The more of them there are the less onerous the task will be on each.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2010)

I have 4 children, oldest 12, youngest 1. I’d happily have more.


----------



## gabsdot (1 Oct 2010)

Oh to have the luxury of choice. 

I have 2 kids both adopted. When we were first married we thought we'd have 5 or 6 kids but it wasn't to be and now 2 is enough for me, but I'm 40 now and don't have the same energy I had in my 20s. Still if another one or two landed in my lap I'd be delighted. 

In my opinion if you have to put this much thought into the decision then you don't want it enough and shouldn't bother having another baby. If you really want one then there is no choice to be made.


----------



## Betsy Og (1 Oct 2010)

gabsdot said:


> In my opinion if you have to put this much thought into the decision then you don't want it enough and shouldn't bother having another baby. If you really want one then there is no choice to be made.



I know what you mean in that if you have an overwhelming urge to have another then (bar any blindingly obvious impediment) you just go for it, fair enough. But I dont think it necessarily follows that if you have to think about it it means you shouldnt.

It reminds me of that awful eejit of a bishop, cant remember his name (theres been a few) who said "the planned child is an unloved child", or words to that effect. I'd say a few social workers could inform him of the proportion of neglected or unloved children resulting from this darned planning  ... down with this sort of thing indeed.

Few of the worlds problems are as of a result of over thought or overplanning (& I'm an overthinker anyway so its not very telling that I'm overthinking this). But yeah, if you're half trying convince yourself then you're lukewarm - however on the 70/30 principle if herself said she wanted #3 I'd say "brace yourself Nora"  (not her real name)


----------



## Complainer (1 Oct 2010)

Niallers said:


> Adopt before having your own.Plenty of childeren of there that need a good home.


This post is about a million miles off the mark. Please do some research about adoption in Ireland.


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2010)

gabsdot said:


> Oh to have the luxury of choice.
> 
> I have 2 kids both adopted.


 
But you did have a choice and fair play to you. Plenty un-wanted children born into this world - your children are lucky because they are in a home where the parents went out of their way to adopt them.


----------



## Shawady (4 Oct 2010)

Staples said:


> Why? Have they nobody else they could fall out with?


 
This guy was from large family himself and I suppose he was looking at the benefits of having many siblings as he got older and his own parents past on.
Maybe he had the rose tinted glasses on as I know plenty of people with large families and not everyoen gets on.


----------



## Ciaraella (4 Oct 2010)

this is something i've been thinking about lately, still early days for me, just got married and this month we've started to try for a baby.
my husband has always said he's love 3+ children whereas i'd be happy with 2. we come from families of these numbers so i think this could have something to do with it!
one reason i'd be reluctant to have more than 2 is i know lots of friends and families (husband's included) where there are more than two children and there is always an outsider. Inevitably two out of three/four/five will get on better with each other and it means some are left out.
then again large families can make it easier in terms of family responsibilites/caring for ageing parents etc the effects of which can't be underestimated.


----------



## z104 (4 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> This post is about a million miles off the mark. Please do some research about adoption in Ireland.


 
Complainer, What are you on about?

I'm suggesting adopting unwanted children before adding to the population.

and what makes you think I haven't researched adoption in Ireland or intercountry?


It would be fantastic if more people adopted or fostered..


----------



## Complainer (4 Oct 2010)

Niallers said:


> Complainer, What are you on about?
> 
> I'm suggesting adopting unwanted children before adding to the population.
> 
> ...


Have you any idea of the cost, time, stress, bureacracy and dissapointment that is involved in adopting today? There are a tiny number of children available for adoption in Ireland today. So any adoptive parents are forced to go abroad, and take a very long and very expensive journey.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> Have you any idea of the cost, time, stress, bureacracy and dissapointment that is involved in adopting today? There are a tiny number of children available for adoption in Ireland today. So any adoptive parents are forced to go abroad, and take a very long and very expensive journey.


 

Just to put some 'real' numbers on this - was speaking to a couple over the weekend who adopted a foreign child.

They looked into adopting in Ireland, in the year in which they began their investigation there were 2 adoptions in Ireland that year. 

To go through the adoption process it took them 5 years, and cost roughly 20K. They opted for a baby, had they gone for an older child it could have taken longer. A month after they got their baby girl the country they adopted from closed its foreign adoption agreement with Ireland meaning anyone else on the list  would have now gone back to the start of another list - so you could be 5 years in and then suddenly have to go back to a point 3 years earlier.
They went through a massive amount of red tape, bureacracy, had every area of their lives examined and questioned, and flew back and forth to the country in question a couple of times during the process. It was not easy.

They are, of course, delighted with their new daughter - but it was an arduous journey for them. Its not an easy road.


----------



## michaelm (4 Oct 2010)

truthseeker said:


> They looked into adopting in Ireland, in the year in which they began their investigation there were 2 adoptions in Ireland that year.


Not many children come up for adoption in Ireland.  That number could be hugely boosted (in theory by nearly 5000 each year) but that would require a change in mindset.  I'm sure there would be many frustrated couples only to happy to adopt in Ireland.


----------



## Shawady (4 Oct 2010)

I thought it was virtually impossible to adopt an irish child as children are not given up for adoption in this country any more.


----------



## Complainer (4 Oct 2010)

michaelm said:


> That number could be hugely boosted (in theory by nearly 5000 each year) but that would require a change in mindset.  I'm sure there would be many frustrated couples only to happy to adopt in Ireland.


What 'change in mindset' did you have in mind?


----------



## Betsy Og (4 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> What 'change in mindset' did you have in mind?


 
I gather they might be talking about abortions which, if "coverted" to adoptions might help couples in Ireland seeking to adopt.

If we get onto that topic this thread will never return to its source, so (though I'm probably more guilty than most of sending threads off topic) does anyone want to start an Adoption Issues thread where all such can be discussed?


----------



## truthseeker (5 Oct 2010)

michaelm said:


> Not many children come up for adoption in Ireland. That number could be hugely boosted (in theory by nearly 5000 each year) but that would require a change in mindset. I'm sure there would be many frustrated couples only to happy to adopt in Ireland.


 
How would it be boosted?
There are a number of private inter-family adoptions in Ireland each year (an aunt adopting a niece type of thing) but due to the change in social acceptance and removal of 'shame' as an unmarried mother, children just dont tend to come up for adoption in Ireland anymore.

I know a number of Irish adults who were adopted as children - everyone one of them who has checked into their background was adopted as the result of being born to an unmarried mother - but thats a social norm these days and not a reason to be put up for adoption.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2010)

+1 to Truthseeker and Complainer.


----------



## bren1916 (5 Oct 2010)

Have 2 boys aged 4 & 5 and we are trying for 1 more child (Mrs would love a girl), I really don't mind which sex once they're healthy etc.
Some very good points made by 'thedaras' earlier, though I think the joy of adding another child to our family would easily outweigh the inconveniences.


----------



## Rois (5 Oct 2010)

Not to mention the mother who spoke about after having 3 disappointments - she finally had a baby girl (and all within earshot of the 3 "disappointments"). ?


----------



## Ancutza (5 Oct 2010)

Have 2 girls, 3 years and 4 weeks respectively. Would love to have a little lad but given that the second one only arrived 4 weeks ago it might be a bit early to open 'negotiations'. Still being threatened with a meat cleaver by some wild, sleep deprived-woman at least 3 times per night!!!


----------



## foxylady (6 Oct 2010)

Still being threatened with a meat cleaver by some wild, sleep deprived-woman at least 3 times per night!!! [/QUOTE]


----------



## foxylady (6 Oct 2010)

Ciaraella said:


> this is something i've been thinking about lately, still early days for me, just got married and this month we've started to try for a baby.
> my husband has always said he's love 3+ children whereas i'd be happy with 2. we come from families of these numbers so i think this could have something to do with it!
> one reason i'd be reluctant to have more than 2 is i know lots of friends and families (husband's included) where there are more than two children and there is always an outsider. Inevitably two out of three/four/five will get on better with each other and it means some are left out.
> then again large families can make it easier in terms of family responsibilites/caring for ageing parents etc the effects of which can't be underestimated.


 

Wait till you have your first one then you might have a better idea if you want anymore


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2010)

foxylady said:


> Wait till you have your first one then you might have a better idea if you want anymore



I alwasy say that once you have one your life is ruined so you may as well have more.


----------



## foxylady (6 Oct 2010)

Purple said:


> I alwasy say that once you have one your life is ruined so you may as well have more.


----------



## Yachtie (7 Oct 2010)

Purple said:


> I alwasy say that once you have one your life is ruined so you may as well have more.


 
Ahem, NO! As anyone else, I love my son to bits and would do anything for him BUT it takes only one night of badly interrupted sleep (teething) to make me wonder why did I have him in the first place. Luckily for both of us, this doesn't last long. 

I can't comment on having more than one but I think that it really depend on the person (primarily the mother). I am finding it really difficult to cope with not having as many career choices for example. The days of me going on a business trip on Monday and coming back on Thursday night are well and truly over or working on mega important projects which require long hours and often weekend work. It's simply isn't feasible with a small child and I am looking forward to my son growing a bit and being less dependant on me. 

On the other hand, if the mother is happy to be SAHM and the couple can afford another child (regardless of whether is #2 or #5), I don't see why not.


----------



## Sue Ellen (7 Oct 2010)

Yachtie said:


> (regardless of whether is #2 or #5), I don't see why not.



I wouldn't be without my kids but being realistic it gets tougher as they get older and not easier, be it on the financial or tolerance side.  When they were very young and their torture tactic of sleep deprivation was at its worst I couldn't understand how friends could say it was the easy stage.  Time, as usual, has brought me around to their way of thinking.


----------



## Yachtie (8 Oct 2010)

Sue Ellen said:


> I wouldn't be without my kids but being realistic it gets tougher as they get older and not easier, be it on the financial or tolerance side. When they were very young and their torture tactic of sleep deprivation was at its worst I couldn't understand how friends could say it was the easy stage. Time, as usual, has brought me around to their way of thinking.


 
Please don't be saying stuff like like that to me, I comfort myself thinking that all this hardship will pass when he gets a bit bigger and I'll have my life back. At least let me delude myself like that .


----------



## Betsy Og (8 Oct 2010)

Yachtie said:


> Please don't be saying stuff like like that to me, I comfort myself thinking that all this hardship will pass when he gets a bit bigger and I'll have my life back. At least let me delude myself like that .


 
+1, and can we have someone on to say that before you know it they'll be grown up and gone, you might get a phonecall once a month, so cherish these precious times with them .......


----------



## Firefly (8 Oct 2010)

Sue Ellen said:


> I wouldn't be without my kids but being realistic it gets tougher as they get older and not easier, be it on the financial or tolerance side. When they were very young and their torture tactic of sleep deprivation was at its worst I couldn't understand how friends could say it was the easy stage. Time, as usual, has brought me around to their way of thinking.


 
Thanks a million, you've spoiled my 2010


----------



## DB74 (8 Oct 2010)

As Homer Simpson says

"_The sooner kids talk, the sooner they talk back"_


----------



## Vanilla (8 Oct 2010)

Sue Ellen said:


> I wouldn't be without my kids but being realistic it gets tougher as they get older and not easier, be it on the financial or tolerance side. When they were very young and their torture tactic of sleep deprivation was at its worst I couldn't understand how friends could say it was the easy stage. Time, as usual, has brought me around to their way of thinking.


 
Ours have just started primary school which is a really lovely age. Now they are both finally sleeping through the night ( usually) but still both very affectionate and think we are great.  From what our friends say, it's downhill from here until their mid twenties...


----------



## BONDGIRL (9 Oct 2010)

I have one age two. I found the first year very very hard. No sleep, crying , just was overwhelmed. 

I can honestly say now its great, but still scarred from that first hard yr..

No way I could have more then two as I couldn't cope. I don't function well with no sleep etc and find working full time, mother, home life etc difficult to manage at times, so I have accepted although I would love the idea of a big family, I would not cope well.


----------



## Sue Ellen (10 Oct 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Ours have just started primary school which is a really lovely age. Now they are both finally sleeping through the night ( usually) but still both very affectionate and think we are great.  From what our friends say, it's downhill from here until their mid twenties...



It is the lovely stage alright where they need more sleep and usually think you are the greatest thing since sliced pan.  Its when they start smelling themselves  and looking in the mirror all the time that the trouble starts.


----------



## Shawady (11 Oct 2010)

Vanilla said:


> From what our friends say, it's downhill from here until their mid twenties...


 
One of my colleagues claims ages 4 to 12 are the perfect ages.
My 5 years old can be moody now, so I am not looking forward to his teenage years!


----------



## Shawady (11 Oct 2010)

Article in the paper about this issue.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...ut-how-many-children-is-too-many-2373559.html


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Oct 2010)

She didnt really reach any conclusions or give much of her own opinion. Just restated facts, most of which were well known.


----------

