Two children or three?

[cashewnut]

We're sat here with our dinner guests debating whether it's better to have two or three children. Any contributions from the collective wisdom of the forum?

[lucyA1308]

I'd love to have 3, but as I am fairly shattered with just two, I do wonder why? My 2 are just gorgeous, and perhaps i should leave it at that??

Any good reasons to keep going?

[Strawbs]

Pre baby number 1 I always thought I wanted 3 but we have decided to only have two, baby number 1 is 7.5months and still not sleeping through so it makes it hard to think about going brought it a further two times hahah.. Financially also it makes things easier for us but I can't guarantee if baby number 2 is another boy that I wouldn't be tempted to try for a girl.. For now though two seems perfect for us..

[duchessofdulwich]

Good thread. I've talked to another mum about going for number three but logistically and financially I've heard 3 is tough?

[kristymac1]

I always find threads like these a little odd (sorry), there was another a while back on 'what is the 'best' age gap to have between kids'. Numbers are irrelevant and what works for one family could be hellish for another. I guess I'm also sensitive to those that dont have that choice, many would love to debate the pros and cons of having more kids based on financial or logisitical issues, but they simply dont have that choice or expectation.....

[Otta]

Surely neither is "best". Whatever works for the couple and their life.

[fapl]

I am one of 5. I am not sure which one of us my parents would have given up for more or better holidays.

[Convex]

I am one of 3 and always thought I would have 3. But I'm just getting the hang of 1 and so I sort of can't imagine going through it all again! Let alone twice more. I will def try for one more and then we shall see!

I'd like my son to have a sibling though, i am grateful for both of mine as no matter what happens there is someone out there who is obliged to love me and to get all my jokes and understand my point of view as they have the exact same background etc.

Having said that I know lots of only children who don't feel they missed out. So I don't think 1, 2 or more is 'better' it just is what it is.

[sillywoman]

3 was soooo much easier and better than 2. Fun and lovely. 3 every time.

4 was hell.

But that's just my take on it.

money? pah, who needs it?!

;)

[Fuschia]

I went from 1-3 so can't comment on 2. But with 3 you probably need a bigger car, and can't get by with one family room or a family ticket to something. Also need a catering size toaster and two frying pans tO cook pancakes

[Townleygreen]

Had boy/girl twins first so could have stopped there with instant family! However, fancied seeing what it was like to have just one, so did so (girl).

Was great having three but we were quite lucky, never had probs with them sleeping through night etc.

They are now in their twenties.

[dulwichgirl2]

Depends on what you can afford surely. I would want a lot of nice things for each child. I shall not specify as i don't want to be attacked. We have to prioritise accordingly. Good luck whatever you decide.

[simonethebeaver]

My first was baby number three in the family as my two steps are with us full time. Since we already need the seven seater, four bedrooms etc it's quite liberating to not have to make the decision. I'd still love to have three of my own, which would take us to five...

[zeban]

But everyone has different standards of what is 'affordable'. I'm one of five and definitely don't think I missed out on 'nice things' even though we were very poor financially and I'm sure didn't have those 'nice things' you talk of. You don't 'have to prioritise accordingly' dulwichgirl, you are choosing to prioritise accordingly.

It can be hard work having so many siblings but I love them and I'm grateful for them. As you get older, it can be harder to maintain friendships as people go their own way but siblings will always be there for you and the memories and shared epreiences you have with them you'll never have with anyone else. The only thing I wish I had had growing up was a room of my own at some point, rather than having to share with my sister right up until I moved out. But other than that, I think we were absolutely fine.

Overall, I'm with Otta and KristyMac, find these threads a little odd and there's no right or wrong answer no matter how many anecdotes you collect from others. Find it an odd 'debate' to have at a dinner party.

[Pugwash]

I started with one and then met my husband who had a child 2 years younger then mine, who we had weekends and holidays. We then had our daughter. Between the eldest and youngest is 13 years and 11 years with the middle one. All girls - we now have one daughter with 4 children aged 2 - 18, one daughter with a 13 and 8 year old and one not yet started on a family.

[Jo'sEnglish]

zeban Wrote:

Find it an odd 'debate' to have at a

> dinner party.

I think I find it odder that mid-debate at a dinner party they decide to post on the forum! ;)

I think it is very personal and you can't say 2 is better or 3 is better or 5 is better because every family is different, and what is better for them is different. I don't think having 'nice' things is very important at all, as long as you can afford food on the table and the bills surely that every child feels loves and wanted is the most important? I can't imagine saying to my child 'you don't have any siblings because we wouldn't have been able to afford to buy them an ipad and a wardrobe of fancy clothes'! Surely the first child is the most expensive anyway as you have to buy all their stuff and then you reuse a lot for subsequent ones? Or so I hope...

edited for typo!

[zeban]

.

[zeban]

Jo'sEnglish Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> zeban Wrote:

> Find it an odd 'debate' to have at a

> > dinner party.

>

>

> I think I find it odder that mid-debate at a

> dinner party they decide to post on the forum! ;)

Oh yes, how did I miss that part!

Completely agree with the rest of your post.

[womanofdulwich]

Please bear in mind some siblings do not get on with each other. Chalk and cheese. You are blessed if you can have children but mine hardly speak to each other apart from sharing insults.

[zeban]

That's true womanofdulwich, I don't get on with one of my sister's at all. In general though, the older I get the closer I've become to my siblings- apart from that one!

[Saffron]

Siblings are NOT nec "always there for you". Some siblings are awful. One of my siblings has heaped nothing but abuse on me (I don't speak to him anymore). The other ignores me. My friends are my family and stick by me in a way some people think siblings would.

I wish my parents had stopped at two. There are three siblings, I'm the youngest (two older brothers). So think on that a while if you're not great with numbers. I used to beg my parents to send me to boarding school, so I could get away from my horrible brothers. We definitely missed out on a lot of stuff b/c we couldn't afford it. I love my parents, but I don't love my siblings. Going from two to three was a logistical leap to which I don't think my parents gave enough thought. I think they should have left a bigger gap between me and my older brothers, so they would have been more independent. As it was, my mother had a stubborn 8 yo, a needy 4.5 yo, and a newborn.

Yes, it's very much different strokes for different folks. But sometimes if you know how other people felt and what problems they encountered, then you can plan better for your own life. (Or at least you can cope better with what you get!) If nothing else, it's a great theoretical debate! :)

[Jo'sEnglish]

No, I have never got on too well with my brother but I guess on balance I was glad to have a sibling, and I think it was the right thing for my parents. But, absolutely, some families are best with 1 child, and there is no reason why an only child can not be just as happy as one with brothers and sisters (or in some cases happier!) I guess you never know if your children are going to get along until it is too late so, like many things in parenting, you just have to do what feels right for you.

[cuppa tea]

I've never thought it a good idea to outnumber the parents....asking for trouble!!

[zeban]

well I'll always be there for my siblings, even the one I'm not fond of! It's good to be a big sister :-)

I also have a friend whom I consider a sister because we grew up together and have remained close to this day, despite going through periods of our lives when we didn't have much in common- although we're back to where we're definitely both on the same page. we realise that what we have is very special and pretty rare- I think those shared memories of when we were young together have acted like the glue in our friendhip, holding us together even through times where we've fallen out, and had it not been for that maybe wouldn't have made such an effort to stay close.

[cashewnut]

Ha ha ha yes there were a few shouts of "get off the East Dulwich Forum you're totally addicted" but we were also having a parallel conversation about the East Dulwich Forum and I wanted to show it off to visiting 'outsiders'.

Two of the people there were one of three siblings and thought it was great for them but terrible for the parents. Several mothers of three children have told me not to have three as it's too much hard work. I don't think they had very involved partners though.

Take the point about it being a bit of a weird conversation - it was a lighthearted discussion and obviously we are not planning our lives off the back of it!