How did you know you were done adding to your family?

[Soror]

My last pregnancy was rough on me, with it came thyroid disease (or rather unveiled it). It was hard emotionally, physically, mentally, etc. I was mad at God for awhile, I tried not to be but I was. I've been slowly getting *me* back and my youngest is nearly 4. At times I think maybe in the future I'll be open to another but mostly I still feel settled that it is time to move on. For a good while when someone announced pregnancy my first thought was that I felt sorry for them, I can feel happy for them now, even if I don't wish to be there myself. Dh was also at the end of his rope too, I wouldn't want to add another at this point for his well-being as much as my own. 

 

In a way I agree that we should be able to provide for the kids we do have but I also believe that there are more important things than money. In the end, we all have to decide what are necessities for our family. I wish we could provide more but feel blessed for all we are able to give them. 

 

I do still a bit disgruntled with the pro-big family people, the people that seem to ignore the effects on multiple pregnancies on mom(and the family as a whole). It is not all roses and sunshine, even when you try to take care of yourself. There is no magic parenting formula that makes this all easy, this is work, it is good work but work nonetheless and I wish there was a bit more support for the middle ground. We don't have to be martyrs to be good moms and we don't have to detach to have emotional help. I'll encourage my daughters to seek outside help and support and I hope to be in a place to help provide it for them, as it was it seemed my MIL's view was that I had to suffer so do you and my mom worked and then was on the hook to help my brother with his kids and rarely had anything left over to help me. Of course maybe part of this is more so true for SAHM's I think it is easy to lose yourself when your life revolves around your kids and it seems that is encouraged to an unhealthy degree. Meanwhile, I'm cutting back for my kids so I can do more for me and I feel no guilt. I don't feel that living entirely for your children, without your own identity, is the type of example I want to set for my daughters. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by soror

[EMS83]

Look, it's not as though, at age 26, I had it completely mapped out how many children I could send to college debt-free - I don't even have it completely figured out now and I have one in college and another in 11th grade. Also, it is likely that someone's going to carry some debt for schooling before all three kids have a degree in hand. I don't think anyone's saying you have to have a fully-stocked college fund before you have your first child.

 

I think the point was that many of us do not feel that college, varied experiences through travel and extracurriculars and other nice-to-have benefits are merely materialistic luxuries. I don't think it is desirable to have a housefull of kids but rarely be able to enjoy even simple variations in experience because kids cost in money, time and parental energy.

 

As I said, I am pro-big family and wanted a bunch of kids. BUT! I'm not in favor of having more kids on the blithe idea that kids don't actually need much and can grow up perfectly well in the farmhouse with their many siblings to be their "friends." Even if you are a thrifty person and can outfit your kids head-to-toe in yardsale finds and can stock a tiny bedroom with four sets of bunkbeds you found out by the curb in a FREE pile, raising kids optimally can be unexpectedly expensive because each child has his or her own individual needs that are not hand-me-downable. If one of your kids has mouth trauma and wrecks his four front teeth, it's nice to know you can deal with this expense. This, I know.

 

I grew up in a family with scarcity and it stinks. Sure, I am glad all my siblings were born - and, hey, I was third, so I could have not been born - but it was often painful to be constantly the have-not.

 

No, I would not tell someone they should have zero children until/unless they have arrived somewhere near upper-middle, but I would advise a young person without solid footing (reliable income source, marketable skill, cash flow) to prevent conception until a more stable outlook can be secured.

 

I'm not wanting to take sides or jump on anyone's case, but for the purposes of testifying from the other side of the fence:

 

I'm an only child, and our household income was in the low 6 figures by the time I was 18, assets over 1 million.  I did not appreciate this or care about it; it barely registered.  I voluntarily shopped at thrift stores in high school, but also blew my allowance on extremely poor choices.  The other side isn't any better just for being more well off.  I also knew kids with way more comforts but way less familial interaction (think $500k+ homes, fancy pools, rooms dedicated to unheard-of gizmos, but emotionally/physically absent parents).  My parents at least wanted and tried to be constructive and supportive and involved.  Finances just do not make or break a family or a childhood.  The trick is not letting finances interfere with the family dynamic; many parents fail at this, poor or rich.  It's just a hard thing to do.

[ktgrok]

I do think your own family of origen can impact this. I grew up poor..as in, at breakfast time my father had no idea where the money would come from to buy dinner. He just figured he would find a way. And he did, thankfully. Christmas gifts were thrift store finds or handmade...one favorite was a large wooden crate that they painted and turned into a toy box :)  Dinner was spaghetti or fish, and the fish was because Dad was a commercial fisherman, so we had a steady, free access to it. 

 

My husband grew up with more money than that, but FELT much poorer, and money was a  constant stress for him. I think my parents were much healthier emotionally (his mom had major issues with mental health, and his dad died when he was young. Grandparents were around which helped to an extent, but mom was bad at taking advice). 

 

So financially we had similar backgrounds, but it had very different effects on us. I grew up with my father's motto about having kids, "there's never a good time, and we knew we wouldn't let you starve." He grew up very different....he had more material luxuries, but with constant money stress and it took a long time for him to become more comfortable with having kids, etc because of it. 

[Lawyer&Mom]

We are done at 2. I would like to be pregnant again. I'd like to meet another new person. But I've had two c-sections. And a preemie. And I'm getting older. I'm pretty risk averse by nature. I'm content to stop now and savor what we have. That and DH is done, done, done.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think it's really for me or anyone to say what other people should be able to afford for their children beyond the basics, with or without some help at times. I also don't think that it's for anyone to call families materialistic because they might personally consider extracurriculars, music lessons and such to be a very high priority.

 

I grew up poor enough that dinner wasn't always on the table but for standing in line at the food bank or church pantry. We didn't starve but there were nights of very dubious meals. The techical term being food insecurity. There were periods of homelessness, flop apartments and living in federally subsidized project housing. If my parents had kept on having children after things reached that point, I would think they were foolish at best. They had three total including my older brother who has a different biological father. Their main motivation in stopping though wasn't financial (because my brother was born before things progressed to that point), it was because my younger brother was born with a disability and significant special needs. They weren't sure if they could emotionally or financially accommodate another child at all in light of those needs, even if the additional child was born developmentally healthy which was not a given.

 

I do prioritize lessons and extracurriculars for my children and I wouldn't want to have a larger family than I could afford to provide all of what they needed and healthy/modest portion of that they wanted. I am hardly what anyone could validly call materialistic.

Edited October 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Veritaserum]

Number, for the most part. We have six. Dh was feeling done after number five (unplanned baby). I wasn't sure. We sat on it for three years and then dh agreed to try X amount of time for one more, but that was IT (baby or no baby). I agreed. I got pregnant two months later. That pregnancy was horrid (placenta previa with bleeding). In retrospect, we probably should have stopped at three kids given how much parental energy our particular set of kiddos need (various medical issues that showed up after we had so many). :unsure: We're pushing through the best we can.

[6packofun]

I think that many people confuse the confusion/anxiety/questioning about whether they are done to be a "sign" that they are not done.  LOL  Make a decision together with your spouse and be at peace about it, knowing that nothing is permanent. One does not HAVE to make this a huge deal and all family sizes are amazing and wonderful!

 

Dh and I have said we are done for years now, always with the caveat that if God wants us to adopt He'll let us know.  So we've spent the last 10 years not worrying if there was a right or wrong way to make this family (IS there always a right or wrong when it comes to a number??) and happily, if not stress-freely (lol), raising the 6 kids we have.  That's it.

 

[LMD]

We have come to the understanding that these things are much less in our control than we like to assume - barring extreme measures like sterilisation or termination.

Finances too, to an extent.

 

My youngest turns 3 next week, I'm 32. I've been married for 13.5 years, never used birth control, and have only had one surprise baby. The other 3 took many months of drugs and stress and loss. We're not going down that path again but if we're blessed with another surprise then we'll be happy.

[AmandaVT]

I really wanted 3 or 4 and DH wanted at least 2. It took over 18 months to get pregnant with DS and 6 years before getting pregnant a second time. I had a miscarriage and decided more kids wasn't meant to be. 

[Lisa R.]

We have come to the understanding that these things are much less in our control than we like to assume - barring extreme measures like sterilisation or termination.

Finances too, to an extent.

 

My youngest turns 3 next week, I'm 32. I've been married for 13.5 years, never used birth control, and have only had one surprise baby. The other 3 took many months of drugs and stress and loss. We're not going down that path again but if we're blessed with another surprise then we'll be happy.

 

I disagree pretty strongly with the first paragraph if it refers to preventing pregnancy. This is the 21st century and there are some very effective means of birth control assuming people are using them correctly. 

 

Also, many of us do not consider sterilization an "extreme measure." It's very common and effective; I don't believe I've ever heard it described as extreme before.

 

I do agree that the ability to conceive is not always in our control for some women. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Extreme has more than one meaning and doesn't carry a negative connotation in this context.  I think the term "extreme" is reasonable when used with sterilization considering it's permanent and invasive compared to all other temporary and reversible options. My husband had a vasectomy and the doctor was  very clear that while some can be successfully reversed, no one should ever bet on it.  There are people who have reversals and still never have children. He also made it clear that it wasn't 100% to prevent pregnancy even when done correctly, so you're really only dramatically reducing the chances of a future pregnancy, not guaranteeing it.  I had to sign paperwork that made him not legally liable if I got pregnant after because we chose a vasectomy after my life threatening pregnancy and life threatening delivery of my middle child.

I teach my girls that anyone using less than 2 forms of medically legitimate birth control is trying to get pregnant no matter what they tell themselves or others so they should just pick out a boy name and a girl name now.  Failure rates for each are high enough that if you don't want to get pregnant either double up or get sterilized.  That's just math.

[barnwife]

 

 

But if someone is homeschooled, the parent is in charge of the daily surroundings. If they don't have lessons or extra classes or fairly regular outings and live in a rural environment, it is an isolating childhood. 

 

 

Well, that's your opinion. 

 

Signed, 

A Happily Rural, HS Mom

 

ETA:

Sorry, had to post quickly before as my kids wanted to go enjoy their "isolated" childhood by spending time with our goats.

 

FWIW, I would argue that my children's rural environment, with no lessons/extra classes (so far, anyway, unless you count Sunday School), has been less isolating at this point than my childhood. I grew up in a small town, attended preschool, and took various lessons by the age of our oldest (currently 6).

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by barnwife

[Guest]

Extreme has more than one meaning and doesn't carry a negative connotation in this context. I think the term "extreme" is reasonable when used with sterilization considering it's permanent and invasive compared to all other temporary and reversible options. My husband had a vasectomy and the doctor was very clear that while some can be successfully reversed, no one should ever bet on it. There are people who have reversals and still never have children. He also made it clear that it wasn't 100% to prevent pregnancy even when done correctly, so you're really only dramatically reducing the chances of a future pregnancy, not guaranteeing it. I had to sign paperwork that made him not legally liable if I got pregnant after because we chose a vasectomy after my life threatening pregnancy and life threatening delivery of my middle child.

 

I teach my girls that anyone using less than 2 forms of medically legitimate birth control is trying to get pregnant no matter what they tell themselves or others so they should just pick out a boy name and a girl name now. Failure rates for each are high enough that if you don't want to get pregnant either double up or get sterilized. That's just math.

Mhmm, agreed.

 

And someone like me who is 30, has had healthy pregnancies and births by and large, has some improving health issues, finances generally in order (once we get around the current logjam of too many unexpected bills and medical issues at once), and is just really overwhelmed and tired? Any permanent birth control *would* be extreme. I very well may want more kids in three or five years, and would still be plenty young enough to have them even though I have a gazillion or so already. Too much changes in a decade, and that combined with moral/religious compunctions with sterilizing sans medical makes it a really bad fit for us.

 

Now we are happy using our current birth control methods and might consider something a little more reliable for several years, but jumping to completely ending our fertility without a compelling medical reason just doesn't sit well.

 

On the other hand it is a necessary choice for some and an absolute safety issue for others. This is SO individual for each family to decide for themselves.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[LMD]

Thanks Homeschool Mom in AZ, I didn't mean extreme with negative connotations, I meant extreme as the farthest end you can go. I can see how extreme carries some extra weight and may be a poor word choice.

 

I know that we have developed some good birth control options, but I believe that culturally we rely on them to a higher extent than they promise. Jmo, you're welcome to ignore me.

 

The inability to conceive naturally came as a huge shock to me at 19/20. My 29 year old sister thought she had plenty of time, until the breast cancer and related chemo. Life is so much less controlled and predictable than we like to think.

 

Again, just trying to make it clear that this is what informs my opinion, not what should be chiselled in stone.

[JustEm]

I disagree pretty strongly with the first paragraph if it refers to preventing pregnancy. This is the 21st century and there are some very effective means of birth control assuming people are using them correctly.

 

Also, many of us do not consider sterilization an "extreme measure." It's very common and effective; I don't believe I've ever heard it described as extreme before.

 

I do agree that the ability to conceive is not always in our control for some women.

I'm confused with your responses. At least twice in this thread you have disagreed with people's personal responses to how they knew they were done. Neither seemed to be making general statements about everyone but rather talked about what works for their families and their marriage. What is the point of disagreeing with a personal decision that has no bearing on anyone's life but the person making that decision?

[IfIOnly]

Extreme has more than one meaning and doesn't carry a negative connotation in this context. I think the term "extreme" is reasonable when used with sterilization considering it's permanent and invasive compared to all other temporary and reversible options. My husband had a vasectomy and the doctor was very clear that while some can be successfully reversed, no one should ever bet on it. There are people who have reversals and still never have children. He also made it clear that it wasn't 100% to prevent pregnancy even when done correctly, so you're really only dramatically reducing the chances of a future pregnancy, not guaranteeing it. I had to sign paperwork that made him not legally liable if I got pregnant after because we chose a vasectomy after my life threatening pregnancy and life threatening delivery of my middle child.

 

I teach my girls that anyone using less than 2 forms of medically legitimate birth control is trying to get pregnant no matter what they tell themselves or others so they should just pick out a boy name and a girl name now. Failure rates for each are high enough that if you don't want to get pregnant either double up or get sterilized. That's just math.

Trying to get pregnant? Really? I know people who were absolutely trying to prevent (IUD for example) and conceived. I can assure you the last thing they wanted was to conceive and they were not "trying". Maybe they weren't as uber careful, but if they had know better, they would have been more so. But you are convinced otherwise, so... Edited October 4, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[Guest]

I'm not wanting to take sides or jump on anyone's case, but for the purposes of testifying from the other side of the fence:

 

I'm an only child, and our household income was in the low 6 figures by the time I was 18, assets over 1 million. I did not appreciate this or care about it; it barely registered. I voluntarily shopped at thrift stores in high school, but also blew my allowance on extremely poor choices. The other side isn't any better just for being more well off. I also knew kids with way more comforts but way less familial interaction (think $500k+ homes, fancy pools, rooms dedicated to unheard-of gizmos, but emotionally/physically absent parents). My parents at least wanted and tried to be constructive and supportive and involved. Finances just do not make or break a family or a childhood. The trick is not letting finances interfere with the family dynamic; many parents fail at this, poor or rich. It's just a hard thing to do.

I understand that; it's not to say that everyone living a simple life is miserable, while those living in luxury have no issues. :)

 

All I know is, my experience growing up was witnessing constant anxiety about anything money-related by my parents. They are money avoiders and seem to think they will just pray problems away. When household equipment broke, it was many months or even years before the thing could be repaired or replaced - and that is including the fact that my dad was reasonably handy and could fix many home and car problems.

 

When I was 16, I was ill for several months. I would attempt to hide how badly I felt because my mother was constantly anxious about how much doctor visits or treatments would cost.

 

There were other things, but the point I'm trying to make is that I know I do not want to live on the razor's edge if I can help it. I don't have to live in a mansion or send my kids to tippy-top schools, but I don't want my kids to conceal the fact that they are freezing in their inadequate coat or have a toothache that needs attention because they feel badly for causing financial stress. :(

[Lisa R.]

I'm confused with your responses. At least twice in this thread you have disagreed with people's personal responses to how they knew they were done. Neither seemed to be making general statements about everyone but rather talked about what works for their families and their marriage. What is the point of disagreeing with a personal decision that has no bearing on anyone's life but the person making that decision?

Well, I think this thread, like many other threads on this board, have people expressing opinions back and forth with people agreeing, disagreeing, asking further questions, offering more opinions and so on. This thread seems no different.

[Guest]

Trying to get pregnant? Really? I know people who were absolutely trying to prevent (IUD for example) and conceived. I can assure you the last thing they wanted was to conceive and they were not "trying". Maybe they weren't as uber careful, but if they had know better, they would have been more so. But you are convinced otherwise, so...

Not the original poster, but I believe she was saying is that there is enough margin of pregnancy with even 'very reliable' birth control that just using any single form isn't a reliable way to avoid conception, and telling oneself it is is ignoring the statistical reality for many healthy, fertile couples.

 

Doubling up with two highly reliable forms is a lot more likely to maintain a non-pregnant stage, short of sterizilation.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[IfIOnly]

Not the original poster, but I believe she was saying is that there is enough margin of pregnancy with even 'very reliable' birth control that just using any single form isn't a reliable way to avoid conception, and telling oneself it is is ignoring the statistical reality for many healthy, fertile couples.

 

Doubling up with two highly reliable forms is a lot more likely to maintain a non-pregnant stage, short of sterizilation.

Well, that may be what she meant. ;) I was never taught to double up in all my sex ed classes. Nor has any doctor ever mentioned it when seeking birth control olinformation. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

 

For me it doesn't matter. I miscarry very early on without intervention. So *if* got pregnant I could just let my sick body do its thing. My second BC I guess.

Edited October 4, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[Guest]

Well, that may be what she meant. ;) I was never taught to double up in all my sex ed classes. Nor has any doctor ever mentioned it when seeking birth control olinformation. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

 

For me it doesn't matter. I miscarry very early on without intervention. So *if* got pregnant I could just let my sick body do its thing. My second BC I guess.

:grouphug:

 

I'm sorry, repeated miscarriage just hurts :(

[Melissa in Australia]

I disagree pretty strongly with the first paragraph if it refers to preventing pregnancy. This is the 21st century and there are some very effective means of birth control assuming people are using them correctly. 

 

Also, many of us do not consider sterilization an "extreme measure." It's very common and effective; I don't believe I've ever heard it described as extreme before.

 

I do agree that the ability to conceive is not always in our control for some women. 

effective for most but not all people. I have got pregnant twice while taking the pill correctly and twice after being sterilised. the first time after sterilisation I miscarried at 12 weeks - a week after finding out I was pregnant as I thought I was just having early menopause. then I had dye put through and confirmed that the chance of getting pregnant was next to impossible only to get pregnant 2 months later with my ds12.

 

 

as I said up-thread, we have thought we were finished many times. only to find out we are destined to have a large family ( and we don't believe in predestination at all)

[mamaraby]

When I got pregnant without intending to be and my first response was not "oh, how wonderful," but instead "oh, sh*%." I felt backed into a corner like I had no choice in the one more baby matter. Looking back now, if it happened again? I absolutely would make a different choice upon discovering I was pregnant again.

 

I love my surprise child. She's a funny, quirky gal. This is the family we have, but I'm also keenly aware that not having one more would have made things a great deal eaiser. I have no belief in any deity so there is/was no magical moment where I became perfectly equipped to deal with another child. I do believe that everyone has their limit (emotionally, financially, energy-wise) as to how many children and what family size they can handle. It's not magic. It's one part math and one part temperment plus a few other bits thrown in there. It absolutely will vary from person to person.

 

I'm incredibly glad that the "extreme" form of permanent birth control was available and we did it before our surprise was even born.

 

Other families will make different choices. Shall I call them selfish for continuing to have children when I think the resources on our planet cannot continue to sustain an ever growing population? No. Likewise, I am not materialistic for feeling like prioritizing some "luxuries" like classes, sports, electronics, or going out to eat are worthwhile things for my kids to have in the mix.

[Frances]

Not the original poster, but I believe she was saying is that there is enough margin of pregnancy with even 'very reliable' birth control that just using any single form isn't a reliable way to avoid conception, and telling oneself it is is ignoring the statistical reality for many healthy, fertile couples.

 

Doubling up with two highly reliable forms is a lot more likely to maintain a non-pregnant stage, short of sterizilation.

As a statistician by training, I absolutely agree. And for us, even a vasectomy wasn't enough, I also have an IUD. The added bonus of not having a period for almost 15 years is also wonderful.

 

Nothing short of abstinence is 100%, so if you're really serious about not getting pregnant, you need to double up to increase your odds of getting the desired outcome. My doctor and I discuss this each time I get a new IUD.

[IfIOnly]

Just another perspective on the math thing: more family who loves you and has your back in this life. I know that's not everyone's experience with siblings/children, but I've met many who do feel that way and love their big family (however you define that). My kids have enough siblings to do fun things they couldn't do otherwise like playing four square in our driveway for one. Ha. :) Homeschooling is not lonely either. I don't judge anyone on their family size small or big (okay, I admit the Duggars some). I wanted a big family since I can remember because I loved all my aunts and uncles and cousins--my big extended hippy, nonreligious family. My sister has four and they're talking about on more and she and her husband are far from religous, so I'm not the only one.

Edited October 4, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[HS Mom in NC]

Trying to get pregnant? Really? I know people who were absolutely trying to prevent (IUD for example) and conceived. I can assure you the last thing they wanted was to conceive and they were not "trying". Maybe they weren't as uber careful, but if they had know better, they would have been more so. But you are convinced otherwise, so...

 

Uh, that's the point of my post. 

 

Yes, because they didn't take seriously the failure rate of people using it correctly.  I'm amazed as how casually people take those failure rates when selecting a single method.   Our birth control education is very poor because our math skills and understanding of probability is poor, so refusing to think it through in very practical mathematical terms has the practical result of higher pregnancy rates.  Changing the conversation to blunt, cold hard reality like I suggest clears it right up.  You may not be telling yourself you're trying to get pregnant if you're only using one, but reality you are.  My daughters get it.  They don't rest assured in the idea of "effective" birth control meaning they have nothing to worry about.  They know because they were told the truth-everything other surgical sterilization has a very real chance of failure for those using it correctly, and human error shoots the chances of failure up even higher.  So, if we take my approach women will be far better off understand the real world in real terms and people won't be in the exact position you just described. Doctors  and schools are failing women right now on this topic.

[FaithManor]

Because of past direct personal experience and observations of the lives of those around me, I have a lifelong deeply ingrained fear of poverty and its consequences on financial, mental and emotional health.

 

I knew I was finished having children when I reached the number I felt I could support as a sole breadwinner in event my husband died.

I understand this completely. I have friends who stopped after one because they had both come from poverty stricken homes and financial security, especially food security and nutrition, were very important to them.

[FaithManor]

Uh, that's the point of my post. 

 

Yes, because they didn't take seriously the failure rate of people using it correctly.  I'm amazed as how casually people take those failure rates when selecting a single method.   Our birth control education is very poor because our math skills and understanding of probability is poor, so refusing to think it through in very practical mathematical terms has the practical result of higher pregnancy rates.  Changing the conversation to blunt, cold hard reality like I suggest clears it right up.  You may not be telling yourself you're trying to get pregnant if you're only using one, but reality you are.  My daughters get it.  They don't rest assured in the idea of "effective" birth control meaning they have nothing to worry about.  They know because they were told the truth-everything other surgical sterilization has a very real chance of failure for those using it correctly, and human error shoots the chances of failure up even higher.  So, if we take my approach women will be far better off understand the real world in real terms and people won't be in the exact position you just described. Doctors  and schools are failing women right now on this topic.

I agree that the failure rates and "real world usage" is not being discussed within our medical profession, or if it is, it is among the professionals but not with patients. 

 

Says the woman who was on a progesterone only pill while nursing a three month old, had not had return of menses, and was using a barrier method with great care and every.single.time. and STILL ended up with baby four who today is a 16 year old boy whom I absolutely cannot imagine life without, but the pregnancy nearly killed me. As in I wrote goodbye letters to each child when I hit the third trimester, and birthday cards for each of them to open on their birthdays until they turned 18 as well as cards for their future graduations, and weddings. Not a good place to be mentally. 

 

So I am a big advocate, when asked by younger women, when teaching my kids, in not only a double method, but a "celibacy" if one has a medical condition making pregnancy dangerous. A terrible way to live, especially when married, but at least one is alive.