Two children or three?

[Belle]

There is a middle ground though, isn't there? Between the BMWs and the million pound houses, and being on benefits? I don't think that parents who choose not to have more children are necessarily doing it for the luxuries, nor for the essentials, but something in between that amounts to 'comfortable'. I didn't grow up on the poverty line but we didn't have very much money, lived in council houses, wore a lot of hand me downs etc. no great hardship as such, but my parents chose not to have a third child because they felt that would stretch things too far. And if I'm honest, it wasn't always easy being the one with the slightly crap clothes, rubbish car, not having level of treats at Christmas/birthdays that my friends had. I wouldn't change it for the world but I just wanted to add the child's perspective really. It can be tempting to romanticise childhoods which didn't feature much money, the reality isn't necessarily a barrel of laughs. This is absolutely not a comment about how many children people choose to have or not have, it's just that I feel perhaps as is often the way on threads like this there's been a bit of polarisation, and the middle ground hasn't been represented! Not all parents who choose not to have more children are doing it so they can keep up with the Jones, and equally I know that lots of parents who do have big families are brilliant at coping economically.

Back to the original post: there's no way I can see myself having a third child, the toll was too high physically and mentally with #1 and #2! I actually feel delighted now that the small baby days are behind me and it's onwards and upwards...I also don't feel it would be fair on my two children as I'd almost certainly have depression again, and having grown up with a parent with depression, that's not easy either.

[Otta]

Well said Belle. Hand me downs particularly bad when you're hanging around with the previous owner, who you think is cool.

[fmay]

It is quite ridiculous to suggest money is not a consideration when deciding how many children you can 'afford' to have. They still need some quality of life, to be fed/clothed/housed and cared for and none of this comes for free. If it was only a question of luxuries, such as big cars or private schools, I would love a huge family....but we have to be realistic of our limits!

[Saffron]

Fmay, I feel just the same! If Hubbie and I were to have another child, then fall into financial difficulty, we would not be able to support ourselves. It's a wing and a prayer (and Hubbie working 8 days a week!) that's keeping us off the breadline now.

I'm up to my eyeballs in student loans, and I've only recently received a teaching fellowship. I took out my student loans long before I ever thought about or wanted children, and I couldn't have done my degrees without loans. It will be a long time before we'd feel secure enough not to have to worry about money, although I hope that in the longrun my academic career will put us in good standing.

I mention it b/c I know I'm not the only one. Lots of other students are in this situation too (or will be very soon).

For now I'm happy not to have more (than just our one!) child, but Mr Saff might want another in the future. We'd have to cross that bridge when we come to it, b/c right now we couldn't even afford the toll at the gate!!

[dulwichgirl2]

Fuschia, I assume from your statement these children you refer to as net givers were not born in an NHS hospital, will never use its facilities or those of the UK education system. They will somehow not need the police service, will have their own pensions, their own swimming pools for leisure and will not need the uk's defence force. They will not have their own children doing any of the above. If they do need these things they will be net takers and hugely subsidised by the state pot (ie other people's money). Why do you think most western economise run a massive deficit?!

Otherwise, for most people, 2 or 3 comes down to how much they can afford. The major issue will be the time one partner takes out of earning and the commensurate effect on career progression which is a seldom discussed but massive loss and generally (not always) one borne by the woman.

[Pasta]

Also grew up with a parent with depression and afraid i might also get it if i have a 3rd. Don't want to risk it as Belle said, not fair on my kids and don't think i'd end up being a good mother or a good wife! People have mentioned the economics which is obviously huge factor but what I also worry about effect on relationship with hubby. Already dedicate most of my time to my 5 and 6 year old so fear a third I will have no time or desire or energy to want to do anything with him! At least now i can cope and distribute time evenly (well i try!)

Also curious people who had 3rd, was it due to wanting different sex i.e. already had 2 of the same or just wanted big family?

[Mellors]

Otta Wrote:

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

> louloulabelle Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Saffron we are not wealthy , we are barely

> > comfortable but money isn't always the issue.

> > People have more kids than us with far less and

> > don't expect 'public funds' as you put it.

> >

> > We work hard at budgeting to give our family

> the

> > best we can. We aren't in the Dulwich elite of

> > having our kids down for private school or

> going

> > to every 'toddler group' going but life does

> not

> > revolve around money and being middle class. We

> > punch above our weight by living here in leafy

> > Dulwich and soon with 3 kids we will have to

> move

> > but why not aim high if you can make it work

> even

> > if for a short time.

> >

> > We would never have had kids if we had thought

> > about the cost but the joy of them far

> outweighs

> > what we sacrifice .

> >

> > So much of people's income is on material

> things,

> > food wastage and socialising and visits to the

> > nail bar etc and for us having kids far

> outweighs

> > those things now.

> >

> > Maybe we are naive not considering the

> financial

> > cost but I'm one of 4 and my family are not

> > wealthy but showed me it can be done. You don't

> > have to live in a ?million house, drive the

> latest

> > BMW X5 and have the kids name down at ducks to

> be

> > able to 'afford' more than one child.

>

>

> Good for you.

>

> By the way, move to Sydenham, it has MUCH nicer

> housing, and is MUCH more leafy ;-)

Couldn't agree more Otta (we moved here from ED when no 3 arrived!)

[gwod]

No, I was never after a particular type (and all of mine are girls) Whatever you get turns out to be what you always wanted!!

I think that a lot of very wealthy people still decide to stop at 2 kids, affordability doesnt seem to be the driving factor for them. I still feel its more to do with instinctual yearning for life more than anything else unless you are genuinely on the breadline. Dont shoot me down though - its just a point of view!

[Fuschia]

dulwichgirl2 Wrote:

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

> Fuschia, I assume from your statement these

> children you refer to as net givers were not born

> in an NHS hospital, will never use its facilities

> or those of the UK education system. They will

> somehow not need the police service, will have

> their own pensions, their own swimming pools for

> leisure and will not need the uk's defence force.

> They will not have their own children doing any of

> the above. If they do need these things they will

> be net takers and hugely subsidised by the state

> pot (ie other people's money). Why do you think

> most western economise run a massive deficit?!

>

Actually the OECD and most western economies do see children as net contributors, and declining fertility as a problem

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/57/39970765.pdf#page4

[minder]

I already had a boy and a girl but just felt a basic 'urge' to have another child. Had a couple of sad times and then, when pregnant at 35 I remember looking at my notes and it said something like prima gravida. I found out it means an older mother! My daughter is now 13 and I was very ill after having her (pulmonary embollism caused by blood thickening during the birth) and this was the only factor that put me off having a 4th.

Would have had to have weekly check-ups, scans etc. and it just wasn't practical with three under 6.

Looking back I wished I had just gone with it but of course at the time things are different.

Just to add that holidays with 3 children more expensive as most places go by 2 adults and 2 children as a family.

[jollymummy]

I always thought that I would like a large family, hubby and I are both one of four. However after having two kiddies, one of each, I feel like I've lost a bit of 'me' and that my life is all about being a Wife & Mother. I miss my old life where I got to do stuff for me, go the pub/cinema/have non-child conversations and not wake up each day & think about what food to cook for the kiddies.

I'm about to return to work after maternity leave and I'm not sure I could go back to the baby days although saying that we haven't decided to stick with two for certain as hubby is pushing for at least one more!

[ClareC]

I don't think this is an odd topic at all.....

We have two, one of each sex, 15 mths apart. We are undecided as to whether to have a third, if of course we are fortunate enough to be able to have another.

I think I would like too, but not yet..... My two are still very young (1&2). My partner would like another when he is getting full nights sleep, but a bad night or so and he goes off the idea ;)

I don't think too much about it or plan as such given its not right now....

[buggie]

Minder said:

> when pregnant at 35 I

> remember looking at my notes and it said something

> like prima gravida. I found out it means an older

> mother!

You got told wrong m'love - that means first pregnancy... strange if it wasn't!

We're fairly settled on having 2... has always appealed to stop at 2 & don't mind if we have 2 girls or one of each.

Hubbie says after that we can get a dog :D

[Helen GV]

what a good idea! will bring up the pet idea next time hubby starts talking about another...

[????]

The other interesting point is social change - off the top of my head (but I think these are the correct numbers as I used to use them a lot), the average age of a first time mum in 1971 was 23 and by 2001 it was 27, loads of especially middle class mums have kids later which tends to suggest that if you have 3 you've then got to squueze them in pretty close. I'm one of 3 and many of my mates are and the pattern with that tended to be 2 quite close together with a third brother or sister about 7-10 years later...harder to do with a later start.

[????]

...and I say that as a bloke approaching 50 with 3 kids under 7 ::o

[minder]

Somebody else has pm'd me with the prima gravida information.

I remember asking a nurse at the time and she told me it means 'older mother'. I knew I wasn't old at 35 so I've been proved right!

Good old EDF!

[etta166]

minder - your notes probably said "elderly primagravida", which does mean old for a first time mother. It was on my mum's notes from the 70s and she was only 28!!

I think that the cut off for this note to be made is now closer to 35 for a first child.

[Fuschia]

But it was minder's third child, if I read it right?

[bluesuperted]

My mum was termed 'geriatric mother' in the 80s when she had my sister. She was 33.

[sillywoman]

"elderly multigravida"?

[etta166]

Fuschia Wrote:

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

> But it was minder's third child, if I read it

> right?

sorry - I only read the quoted section in buggie's post