Anyone else want a lot of kids?

[Olivia]

I didn't like being an only child. Which is probably a part of why I'd like a larger family -- I would really like 4 or 5. I babysat for two families with four girls each when I was a teenager, and we had so much fun together. They were wonderful families.

My husband would like two. So, we're going to start with two or three and see how it goes, if it feels like we can provide financially and emotionally for more and still want them.

I have to say, though, I don't know how many times I want to go through this pregnancy business. That might put the kabosh on having a larger family by itself. :p

[Jessica]

I have a sister but she's 11 years older than I am and she went to live in another state when I was 10. She was out and living with her boyfriend at age 16 so I was basically an only child. I want my sn to have at least one sibling so he'll have someone to reminesce with when I'm gone. I don't have that. When my parents are gone I'll have nobody to say things like "Hey remember when we went on that summer trip to Hollywood and the bottle of ketchup exploded in my hair?"

Like I said in my other post, we'll probably have about 4 kids. I've been thinking a lot lately and I'd love to adopt at least one child. There are so many kids who need loving, safe homes. I'd like to adopt from the Congo, or wherever there's the greatest need. I LOVED being pregnant and would like to have one more biological child in addition to adopting. I looked at a couple websites today and I'm not old enough yet (I'll be 24 in April, and the websites I looked at want people at least 25), so maybe in a few years. Well and my husband is a full-time college student right now so we'll have to wait for that to end, too.

[socalrules]

I was an only child and loved it. I had so many friends from school and down the street, I was never lonely. Plus, I did enjoy it all being about me.

When I was in my twenties, I used to think I would love to have five or six kids. Being in my thirties and still looking for Mr. Right, I think I will probably end up with one or two and that seems perfect for me. The idea of a lot of children seems great but I worry more about being able to give them everything they need.

I think money plays a big part in planning your family. I live in an expensive state where the school system is not that great. Moving is not an option. I want to be able to put my kids in private school so they receive the same type of education I did. I want to be able to give them any type of lessons they want such as piano, dance or whatever interests them. Kids are expensive and I want to be able to give them every opportunity necessary to grow to be healthy, happy, successful adults. I don't want them to ever have to go without as a child or worry about the bills being paid.

[dairyfreelife]

Wtf? There are lots of only children who feel ok with their childhood and lots of kids with siblings who aren't happy with their childhood. Please don't decide all only children grow up "missing something" because you feel YOU did.

I am noticing on here that people are after vintage for saying she would never inflict a child with only childhood, yet no one is criticizing Itsnotaclowncar for saying she would never inflict siblings on a kid. Everyone has different experiences with life. I know people who were happy only children, happy children who have many siblings, happy children with a few siblings or just one sibling. I know people who were only children and hated it because it was lonely for them, children who had many siblings and hated growing up in a large family, children who had one or just a couple siblings and hated it and don't get along with their siblings. Some siblings fight almost all the time, others almost never and most seem to be occasional fights, but get along just as much. I fought with both of mine growing up and sometimes I wished I was an only child, but I wouldn't take my siblings back for anything and I am glad I had them. Both vintage and notaclowncar are basing their opinions on experiences without thinking that neither only children or children with siblings are always bad. It's up to each person to have none, one, two, three or more children and it's okay if their experiences determine that number. Judging everyone either way is not okay.

[lexiloumarie]

We are having our second this summer, and would like 3 total. My partner carried the Kid, and is carrying this one. I'd like the chance to be pregnant once and then we're done. I always thought I'd want a bunch. Teaching cured that one quick.

[StarrieEyedKat]

I grew up close to being an only child (my half brother is 7 years older and I didn't see him much) and I was very lonely. I know that's not a universal only child experience, but it made me want to be a SAHM and have a lot of kids. Then I had kids. Now I'm good with two, unless I can have a maid/cook and an occasional babysitter.

[Bookworm89]

I'm not even thinking of having kids anytime soon, but when I was a teenager and being sucked into my half-sister quiverful ideal life I thought 12 would be awesome. Then I started to think for myself again and started working in a nursery. The nursery cured me real quick of wanting a lot of children. Now I think I would like 2-3 children but that will all depend on what a future spouse wants and what my body is able to handle.

[jaynie]

I am noticing on here that people are after vintage for saying she would never inflict a child with only childhood, yet no one is criticizing Itsnotaclowncar for saying she would never inflict siblings on a kid. Everyone has different experiences with life. I know people who were happy only children, happy children who have many siblings, happy children with a few siblings or just one sibling. I know people who were only children and hated it because it was lonely for them, children who had many siblings and hated growing up in a large family, children who had one or just a couple siblings and hated it and don't get along with their siblings. Some siblings fight almost all the time, others almost never and most seem to be occasional fights, but get along just as much. I fought with both of mine growing up and sometimes I wished I was an only child, but I wouldn't take my siblings back for anything and I am glad I had them. Both vintage and notaclowncar are basing their opinions on experiences without thinking that neither only children or children with siblings are always bad. It's up to each person to have none, one, two, three or more children and it's okay if their experiences determine that number. Judging everyone either way is not okay.

I can't speak for anyone else, and I do agree that judging people for making their own (responsible) parenting decisions is not OK, but I have personally come across a lot of negativity about only children (or kids like me without any close-in-age sibs) that doesn't seem to exist about people with similar-age siblings. Like, only children are always lonely freaks, socially incompetent, spoiled, sometimes even violent (seriously), and an attitude that onlies will always be sad they never had siblings to play with, and if only their parents hadn't been selfish enough to only want one kid, they'd have been so much better off. It can make you defensive! Actually for a while I thought there must be something wrong with me because I never wanted a closer-in-age sibling, because of attitudes like this. The truth is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both, as you say, and it can't be predicted so the best thing is for parents to do what they feel most comfortable with, without worrying that they're "inflicting" either lifestyle on their children.

[candycanehead]

i will admit that had i known what teenagers would be like, i might not have had so many so close together..i have 4 teenage boys and 1 almost 12 year old and oh man, i get sick of the constant noise, fighting, wrestling, being loud and obnoxious..they drive me nuts! :dance: :dance:

and then i have my 1 daughter and my little one who is disabled and needs all kinds of attention..i am horribly overwhelmed.

[saraelise]

I wouldn't mind having plus four kids, but it's more important to me that they're close together in age. I'm 7 and 10 years apart from my sisters and it's taken its toll in the past.

[mbeezer]

I'm very happy with the two I have. My kids are both adults and are 11 years apart so we didn't have the usual fighting, tattling, etc. I know my sister and I about drove our parents crazy with our constant snarking and fighting.

[MissNomer]

I would like to have two, or three at max. Even that many could prove challenging for me, since I am pretty invested in my eventual career (am in gradschool at the moment), and working in academia is extremely time-consuming.

[Guest Anonymous]

NO! I have never, ever wanted to marry or have kids. My family never had a problem with that either. I wasn't raised fundie or even fundie-lite. I'm 43 years old, and had a hysterectomy 10 years ago, so I can't have kids anyway. But, my sister & BIL have named me legal guardian (for reason way too many to name) to their 3 kids if they die before the kids reach 18. I hope that never happens, but I would love them as as my own. I practically do anyway! Strange, huh?

[Itsnotaclowncar]

I am noticing on here that people are after vintage for saying she would never inflict a child with only childhood, yet no one is criticizing Itsnotaclowncar for saying she would never inflict siblings on a kid. Everyone has different experiences with life. I know people who were happy only children, happy children who have many siblings, happy children with a few siblings or just one sibling. I know people who were only children and hated it because it was lonely for them, children who had many siblings and hated growing up in a large family, children who had one or just a couple siblings and hated it and don't get along with their siblings. Some siblings fight almost all the time, others almost never and most seem to be occasional fights, but get along just as much. I fought with both of mine growing up and sometimes I wished I was an only child, but I wouldn't take my siblings back for anything and I am glad I had them. Both vintage and notaclowncar are basing their opinions on experiences without thinking that neither only children or children with siblings are always bad. It's up to each person to have none, one, two, three or more children and it's okay if their experiences determine that number. Judging everyone either way is not okay.

For the record I think everyone should do whatever works for them. There's no guarantee that your kids will have the type of sibling relationship that you want them to have and the ugliness surrounding my grandparents is ongoing and rough thing for me. I'm sorry to anyone I offended.

And a PSA: Have a detailed living will and be clear on who gets what of your stuff when you die, previously rational people can be total asshats even at the funeral :(

[bellicosebroad]

Nope. I almost got married at 26 because back then, I thought you "had" to in order to have kids or if you had a kiddo on the way (I think I was still just a little brainwashed from childhood). Thank goodness I didn't actually get married and thank goodness I didn't get pregnant from that relationship, though I wouldn't really have minded. I thought I wanted two kids, but honestly, once the baby clock stopped ticking at about 35 I was very glad I had none. I love being an auntie, and I love spoiling my "adopted" and biological nieces and nephews, but I'm very glad the only kids DH and I have meow, purr, cuddle... and pretty much take care of themselves.

[loratliff]

So I have a legitimate question that may ruffle some feathers: for all of you who want big families (e.g, 4+ kids), can you REALLY afford it? And I don't mean simply feeding and putting clothes on their backs. Can you afford to send them to college without six-figure loans? Can you afford for each kid to have a unique hobby that is enjoyable to them (whether it be art, music, football)? Do they get to spend time with adults (parent's friends, etc.) or are they always relegated to the kid's table with their siblings?

That has always been my deciding factor in having kids. My parents had only one child because they wanted to give me the world. I picked a very expensive hobby, much to their chagrin, that wouldn't have been possible for me to pursue with other kids in the picture. Not to mention that my cumulative years of schooling were well into the 6-figures.

I wouldn't want anything less for my children and wouldn't ever want them to feel limited as to what interests they can pursue or where they can get their education. Having multiples limits that severely in many, many instances so I wonder why people do it just for the sake of having a big family. Why not bless one child with the best of everything than have four kids wearing hand-me-downs and eating Velveeta? It's not like we don't already have an overpopulation problem.

(I was a very, very happy only, FWIW. So much so that I would like to just have one myself.)

[treemom]

In the same way that I don't think siblings are needed to grow up with fond memories of childhood and be happy I don't think one needs an expensive hobby or one that is even sort of expensive. Love can in fact be enough, it goes back to personal preference,

[loratliff]

In the same way that I don't think siblings are needed to grow up with fond memories of childhood and be happy I don't think one needs an expensive hobby or one that is even sort of expensive. Love can in fact be enough, it goes back to personal preference,

Sorry, but love is not a substitute for a hobby or unique interest. Does it need to be expensive? No, it just so happened that mine was. But you can't honestly say that you could tell your child "Oh, it's okay Susie, we know you love playing the violin, but we can't afford it so love will be enough!" and feel okay about that. Don't you guys always rail on the Duggars for their kids being unable to pursue individual interests? This is just a lesser version of that.

[treemom]

I am noticing on here that people are after vintage for saying she would never inflict a child with only childhood, yet no one is criticizing Itsnotaclowncar for saying she would never inflict siblings on a kid. Everyone has different experiences with life. I know people who were happy only children, happy children who have many siblings, happy children with a few siblings or just one sibling. I know people who were only children and hated it because it was lonely for them, children who had many siblings and hated growing up in a large family, children who had one or just a couple siblings and hated it and don't get along with their siblings. Some siblings fight almost all the time, others almost never and most seem to be occasional fights, but get along just as much. I fought with both of mine growing up and sometimes I wished I was an only child, but I wouldn't take my siblings back for anything and I am glad I had them. Both vintage and notaclowncar are basing their opinions on experiences without thinking that neither only children or children with siblings are always bad. It's up to each person to have none, one, two, three or more children and it's okay if their experiences determine that number. Judging everyone either way is not okay.

Because I read that as using vintage's words against her...in the both ways can have shitty outcomes way. I am not sure itsaclowncar would have used that phrase if it had not been used by vintage,

Also, I admit, having an only means I am more likely to see offense when people make critical statements about it. It is a pretty normal human reaction. But, no, I think I was clear, nothing is guaranteed in life and I don't think sweeping generalizations on the status of siblings or not having them is a good practice.

[treemom]

Sorry, but love is not a substitute for a hobby or unique interest. Does it need to be expensive? No, it just so happened that mine was. But you can't honestly say that you could tell your child "Oh, it's okay Susie, we know you love playing the violin, but we can't afford it so love will be enough!" and feel okay about that. Don't you guys always rail on the Duggars for their kids being unable to pursue individual interests? This is just a lesser version of that.

Actually I get on the duggars for not seeing their children as distinct people. And while I wouldn't tell my child that because seriously that is a dumbas ass statement, I would not hesitate to say we can't afford X. You don't have to justify not being able to afford extras.

If you think they are important, then by all means choose your family size based on that, but not everyone is going to have the same value on that as you do. Personal preference not objective fact.

[emmiedahl]

So I have a legitimate question that may ruffle some feathers: for all of you who want big families (e.g, 4+ kids), can you REALLY afford it? And I don't mean simply feeding and putting clothes on their backs. Can you afford to send them to college without six-figure loans? Can you afford for each kid to have a unique hobby that is enjoyable to them (whether it be art, music, football)? Do they get to spend time with adults (parent's friends, etc.) or are they always relegated to the kid's table with their siblings?

That has always been my deciding factor in having kids. My parents had only one child because they wanted to give me the world. I picked a very expensive hobby, much to their chagrin, that wouldn't have been possible for me to pursue with other kids in the picture. Not to mention that my cumulative years of schooling were well into the 6-figures.

I wouldn't want anything less for my children and wouldn't ever want them to feel limited as to what interests they can pursue or where they can get their education. Having multiples limits that severely in many, many instances so I wonder why people do it just for the sake of having a big family. Why not bless one child with the best of everything than have four kids wearing hand-me-downs and eating Velveeta? It's not like we don't already have an overpopulation problem.

(I was a very, very happy only, FWIW. So much so that I would like to just have one myself.)

Well, as a disclaimer, I did not plan to be raising my children under the poverty level. This was not my PLAN. I had very good reason to think that we would always be comfortable and until a few years ago we were. So read the following through that lens.

My children are limited by finances when it comes to pursuit of every activity they have a passing interest in. Does this affect their happiness or their ability to pursue their passions? Not a damn bit.

As an example: I have a daughter who is very interested in violin, very talented as well, and takes lessons from two different teachers in two different styles. One teacher does it in exchange for performances with the teacher's fiddle group, the other we pay.

My daughter recently wanted/needed a better violin than the student one she was using. She went out busking with my husband one evening a week and earned that money. She was damn proud of herself. She learned a really valuable lesson about working hard to get what you want. She also has become somewhat of a small-town celebrity because of it and gained valuable experience in playing for a crowd. I would have loved to just drop four figures on her, but in retrospect this experience was worth more than the instrument itself.

I have older stepchildren. Two have finished college without any help from us and one is doing it right now. They do not have 6 figures in debt between them; only one needed loans and that was because she chose a more expensive out-of-state college, even then she took out very little compared to the statistic.

These are just a few examples. My children all have activities that they love and follow their passions. We work it out. They all will be receiving great educations. We will work it out. If they are willing to put in effort, so am I. If the activity is not worth their effort, it probably was never worth my money. I don't think it is fair to the millions of poor parents working hard to give their children the best to suggest that their happiness depends on money. Not to say that money is a bad thing, but the old adage that it will not buy happiness is correct.

[Littlebirdy]

Can you afford to send them to college without six-figure loans? Can you afford for each kid to have a unique hobby that is enjoyable to them (whether it be art, music, football)? Do they get to spend time with adults (parent's friends, etc.) or are they always relegated to the kid's table with their siblings?

That has always been my deciding factor in having kids. My parents had only one child because they wanted to give me the world. I picked a very expensive hobby, much to their chagrin, that wouldn't have been possible for me to pursue with other kids in the picture. Not to mention that my cumulative years of schooling were well into the 6-figures.

My parents could not pay for my college education in full (I only have one sibling). Is it really harmful to work while attending college and/or pay back student loans? Not all of us get everything handed to us on a silver platter. Now that I think of it, I don't know *anyone* who was lucky enough to have their entire college education paid in full by their parents.

My children are allowed to have any hobbies that they would like. So far none of them have shown an interest in something insanely expensive. Sports, scouting and music lessons are reasonable. If they stick with playing musical instruments and want professional quality as they get older, they can help pay for them as I did when I was a teen. I came through that unscathed by the way. I also *gasp* worked as a teen and helped pay for my car insurance and maintenance costs.

I am a health fanatic so we eat primarily 90% organic and local food. I don't do hand-me-down clothing. I sell their used clothing at consignment sales twice a year and use the money to buy them a mix of new and used clothing.

We wanted a large family because we love children. It's really that simple. I know that a large family isn't for everyone and I couldn't care less how many kids other people choose to have. Our carbon footprint is probably much less than some of these one child families I see driving huge SUVs, buying everything new and eating food that was shipped across the US.

[clibbyjo]

Well, as a disclaimer, I did not plan to be raising my children under the poverty level. This was not my PLAN. I had very good reason to think that we would always be comfortable and until a few years ago we were. So read the following through that lens.

My children are limited by finances when it comes to pursuit of every activity they have a passing interest in. Does this affect their happiness or their ability to pursue their passions? Not a damn bit.

As an example: I have a daughter who is very interested in violin, very talented as well, and takes lessons from two different teachers in two different styles. One teacher does it in exchange for performances with the teacher's fiddle group, the other we pay.

My daughter recently wanted/needed a better violin than the student one she was using. She went out busking with my husband one evening a week and earned that money. She was damn proud of herself. She learned a really valuable lesson about working hard to get what you want. She also has become somewhat of a small-town celebrity because of it and gained valuable experience in playing for a crowd. I would have loved to just drop four figures on her, but in retrospect this experience was worth more than the instrument itself.

I have older stepchildren. Two have finished college without any help from us and one is doing it right now. They do not have 6 figures in debt between them; only one needed loans and that was because she chose a more expensive out-of-state college, even then she took out very little compared to the statistic.

These are just a few examples. My children all have activities that they love and follow their passions. We work it out. They all will be receiving great educations. We will work it out. If they are willing to put in effort, so am I. If the activity is not worth their effort, it probably was never worth my money. I don't think it is fair to the millions of poor parents working hard to give their children the best to suggest that their happiness depends on money. Not to say that money is a bad thing, but the old adage that it will not buy happiness is correct.

:clap: :clap: :clap: +1million

[treemom]

Is there some weird fear of just saying, this is my personal preference based on my experience?

[Littlebirdy]

I don't think it is fair to the millions of poor parents working hard to give their children the best to suggest that their happiness depends on money. Not to say that money is a bad thing, but the old adage that it will not buy happiness is correct.

Well said.