-
4 is my max no matter what!
-
3, we have 2 right now and we'll hopefully have a third. I don't think I could mother more than three since I don't have the patience for more. Also I think my body will be done once I have that third. Maybe my body will feel differently once I haven't been pregnant or nursing for 4 years straight but for now I feel I can do it one more time - with hopefully a little gap between nursing and being pregnant this time.
-
2, regardless of money
-
4!
-
we have 2, and we have limitless money, it would probably still be 2. we feel stretched thin as it is, emotionally and physically speaking.
-
For me, it's more about labor and delivery than finances. I had an unexpected emergency c section with my second, and I don't think I can go through labor more than one more time. So I said 3 - but we're young and the c section was pretty recent. Things might change as those memories fade.
-
We have two and go back and forth about a potential third. I'm not really worried about the financial piece of it but I'm not sure mentally or emotionally we can handle more than the two we already have.
-
2 no matter what. I like our size family. I can't believe how many of you want such big families.
-
3 regardless....even if I had full time live in help, more kids would make me feel like I couldn't be as involved with all of them as I would like to be. I feel pressure even now with 2!
-
Three. I don't think it's really money that will factor for us though. DH only wants two. I'm hoping that he'll change his mind, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if he didn't.
-
We've always said 2-4 and are expecting our 3rd now... But we are thinking this might be our last. Our reasons have nothing to do with money though. I really have struggled with anxiety this time around and we want to be sure we don't overextend ourselves emotionally. 4 might be an option once we are transitioned to 3 but we really aren't sure. It's a hard choice.
-
I voted 4! In reality probably 2.
-
I voted two b/c I can't do pregnancy another several times and then someone above mentioned adoption! If money were no object I would totally pursue adoption of a 3rd child. Might still do that depending on what life looks like in a few years! Just no more bio kids
-
3, I think. I like the idea of a bigger family than just 2 but I don't do pregnancies well and I'm already AMA. I'd go for 3 if we could afford a nanny and for me to work part-time. In reality, we're aiming for 2.
-
the way money was discussed in the op describes our current situation and we are stopping at 2. If it we were talking about being able to both stay home full time living off of investment income and not having to worry about childcare costs, college, vacations etc. I would definitely want 3 or 4! In order to be this financially stable we both have demanding jobs outside the home with zero flexibility so having kids is possible financially but very difficult physically and emotionally.
-
@Modern Daisy: good point. If we had enough for DH to be home WITH me, that might change my answer! ...Because that would impact the reasons that are our determining factors (if he wasn't working I would have ideal help and more time).
-
3 no matter what!
-
Three. As it is, we don't have unlimited finances and we will probably stick with two.
-
Still just 2. Money isn't a factor in that decision.
-
I voted three, which is currently our plan anyways. Although if we didn't have to consider finances I'd probably end up adopting 1-2 kids eventually, too.
-
I would say 4 because I would probably be able to stay home + have some help when I needed it (i.e. not have to do all the driving or have a babysitter more regularly or cleaning help)
-
We have not chosen based on money. We are a happy family of 3 (1 child).
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
61 comments