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.
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.