economic realities and a late start meant no 3rd kid for us. i think having a third child pushed my sister over the edge so maybe it's for the best.
― velko, Sunday, 18 January 2009 11:08 (fifteen years ago) link
We're still (breathlessly) awaiting our first, so who knows, but we're pretty much settled on two. I've got two brothers, and my wife's got one brother; we're both definitely sold on the value of having at least one sibling.
Three just seems a bit much, in terms of actually going through pregnancy and childbirth and breastfeeding etc three times. We'll see.
― Gorgeous Preppy (G00blar), Sunday, 18 January 2009 11:36 (fifteen years ago) link
No.2 is still in the oven but we're certain that will be it for us. I don't have the urge to have a large family and nor do we have the space or money.
<Generalisation alert>In my experience, these days having large families seems to be the preserve of the very wealthy or the very poor.
― Meg (Meg Busset), Sunday, 18 January 2009 13:17 (fifteen years ago) link
We decided on two cause we don't want to be outnumbered. But honestly, if I had been ten years younger, we would have probably gone for three. Who knows? But I think two is great. No way two can gang up on the other. hah.
In regard to space: do you guys put your kids in one bedroom? We decided no, two seperate. Why? Elisabeth still wakes up in the middle of the night. This is one of the reasons I BF for such a long time (way past 12 months). I don't think I could put her (O) through it. Elisabeth still wakes up every single frigging night. *sigh* I really long for uninterrupted sleep.
― Nathalie (stevienixed), Sunday, 18 January 2009 21:32 (fifteen years ago) link
We were thinking one or two, and ended up with twins...
― schwantz, Monday, 19 January 2009 04:46 (fifteen years ago) link