Hellobee Boards

I think we would still stick with our planned 2-3. I hear you on the wanting your body back part!

Currently we are planning on 2-3 depending on what the financial picture looks like. If money was no object I would bump that up to 3-4.

I voted other because I would still have the same amount of biological children but would also try to adopt as well.

@Rainbow Sprinkles: Idk.. but I know they're more common in boys & her being a girl with them for some reasons scares me to think they'd be more of a possibility with any boys we have. Right now I just feel really unsure about it all!

Nope! Would still just have 2.

In the if money were no object scenario both DH and I were independently wealthy, then we could have four children- his dream number. In this scenario neither of is would work and each child would receive adequate attention from us.

If our salaries were just larger, but required us to keep working I would still just want one.

@photojane: This! I would LOVE to adopt, but we can't afford it

If money were no object we'd definitely try for a second, but two (biological) would still be our limit, as it is now. We might decide to adopt more later, but as is we'd just want to replace ourselves on the earth, not add another person.

I voted "Yep" but really, *I* would have more than we're currently planning (2). I don't think DH would want any more no matter how much $ we had. On his side, there has been a pattern of the youngest kids losing their way and falling into drug abuse and other unsavory stuff.

@Rainbow Sprinkles: I hear ya on the vanity! I'm 31 weeks & so far so good but I told DH (and he supports) that if things get jacked, I'm getting it fixed.

Nope, we'd still do 2, 3 at most. I'm just thankful I'm getting two at once cause this whole being pregnant thing is no friggin fun. Having a 3rd will be dependent on how we feel after the twins are born.

Oh yeah, I would keep having babies if I had unlimited money! Seriously though, I would probably have 5. Without unlimited money ( ) I want 4, but 3 is looking more realistic. I left my family, so it's important to me to fly back to see them at LEAST once a year, preferably twice. That alone is what makes me reconsider having so many kids - buying 6 plane tickets twice a year?!?! o.O

I'm almost positive we would still stop at 2. Money use to be the deciding factor for 2 vs. 3 kids, but after a while we realized we're so happy with 2 we just don't think we want more.

I'm not sure, but we'd at least consider 3 instead of planning to stop at 2

Well, if money was no object, that could mean I could hire like 3 nannies to hopefully wear out my first child? KIDDING! No, I think I would stick with two. It's going to be hard enough (for me) to feel like I'm giving them the attention they deserve.

@hilsy85: I agree

We plan on 4 no matter what. Money isn't an issue. That being said, if money were truly unlimited, I'd get a boob job, tummy tuck and part time nanny to seal the deal after having 4.

DH and I live comfortably...but sometimes we struggle. Money doesn't have an effect on how many kids we will have. We both grew up with little but had great childhoods. Having children and being a mother means everything to me. Something as trivial as money won't change how many kids I want to have. Which is 4 or more!

If money were no object I'd have 6! As it is we're currently planning on 4.

If money were no object, we'd be in a better position to adopt. We want 2-3 children with our current state of affairs, but if we were incredibly wealthy, I would probably top out at 4.

We'd have 1 or 2 more than our plan of 2 to 3, because we'd both have no need to work so we could be home to spend all of our time with our kids.