If money and everything else was not a factor?
We would probably have 2. And help. 
You might also enjoy...
-
3 is our max.
-
3
I have 2 and would love to have 1 more but DCP is just too much money - and money problems stress me out! Also I think my DD would be an amazing big sister!!
-
Probably 4. I've heardfrom many people that with an odd number, someone always gets left out! We can't afford 4 though.
-
We've always said we only want two, but I could see having a third if money wasn't an issue.
-
3 or 4
-
Still 2. Money wasn't our decision maker on that one anyway. I just want to be done having kids early on. I don't want to go through the newborn phase more than twice!!!
-
Oh gosh, if money weren't a factor at all, AND if I didn't have to be pregnant any more, I would want a ton. Maybe 5-6?
Buuuttt...Money is a factor. And space. And my body that hates pregnancy. So, not happening!
-
3. So, one more. That is also if I didn't have to be pregnant again. And spend the next year & a half being woken up every hour & a half.
Eta: come to think of it, if I didn't have to be pregnant and can get help for the newborn stage, I could go for 4/5.
-
3!!
-
4 probably.
-
We are done at three regardless of finances. It's not too much work, but I feel like 4 would be!
-
Same number we plan on having now, 3! 4 just seems like a loooot of work!
-
3-4, especially if I had started earlier. I think we will end up with 2. I will probably 36 when we have the second. So maybe 3 if I'm lucky.
-
2 is enough. We prefer man-on-man defense as opposed to zone
-
If I had help like, someone to do the night feeds and look after my kiddos for a couple of hours each day AND a cleaner/cook etc. then I would have like 4-5?
-
3
-
3-4.
-
Just 1 still. Money is not the driving factor at all in our family plan decision (though it's always a factor of course, more money wouldn't change things).
-
If money were not a limiting factor and I could have a gestational carrier, I would be open to 5 or 6.
-
Still 2.
It isn't all about money, but the time to devote to each kid.
-
Depends what is meant by "everything else"! If that means I would magically want to be a SAHM for good, then I think we'd have several more.
-
4!
-
Still 2.
-
It isn't the money for me, my ideal situation would be tons of amazing family around to help. Doesn't exist for me. If it did? 6!
-
Still 2. I know people do it, and do it well, but I can't picture being outnumbered by young kids! Money is a factor in our decision to have two, but by far not the only one.
However we would have a weekly cleaning lady to help with the two
-
2!!
-
4 kids is our limit. We have two already. Although if we could I would love a mommys helper to come a couple days a week. Sometimes things get crazy.
-
but..."everything else" is just...SO MUCH lol. I still think I'm done at 3. I used to think 4, but, I don't think I have it in me.
-
5 or 6! Really hoping for 4, but we will see when the time comes if we can afford it! I'm taking it one baby at a time.
-
3-4! We're a maybe three family and have planned it accordingly as far as finances. I could maybe swing a fourth, but highly doubt I could physically and emotionally survive a fourth pregnancy/labor/delivery.
-
I might consider 3-4 then, instead of max of 2. Money is a big factor since we would need childcare, bigger house, etc... The other big factor though is do I want to give birth that many times?!
-
2. Maaaaaybe 3 if we could afford bigger cars, more furniture, more bills in general.
-
4! We'll probably end up with 3 though.
-
4, twins two times! Money and help are not our decicing factors.
-
Maybe one more. But I don't know...money can't buy patience and energy!
-
3-4 but, yeah, money and age and lack of sleep...
-
5 or 6. I've always wanted a big family, and DH is one of 7 so he would be on board, too.
-
3-4. We're probably 3 now.
-
If I had enough money for a full time nanny? Two.
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
51 comments