Parenting & Family

How many parents regret having a 4th child?

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 2nd, 2017 12:24 pm
Sr. Member
Jan 2, 2015
974 posts
364 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Aug 19th, 2017 12:00 am
I'm trying to be +ive for the OP. The right # to have is 0 imo. Once you have kids, you can forget about freedom lol.

Ofc one can choose if they have the means a la designer babies, having both sex twins at one shot is the 'best' way, over and done. :D
You are mostly correct that you loose a lot of freedom when you have kids, you have not only yourself to be responsible for but now other lives that depend on you. If one hasn't grown themselves, then best it should be zero kids for them, Good to see that you reconginize about yourself. Best that you don't reproduce based on your views about children.
On a 'smart' device that isn't always so smart. So please forgive the autocorrects and typos. If it brothers you, then don't read my posts, but don't waste my time correcting me. If you can get past the typos, then my posts generally have some value.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7366 posts
918 upvotes
Toronto
Macx2mommy wrote:
Aug 19th, 2017 1:44 am
You are mostly correct that you loose a lot of freedom when you have kids, you have not only yourself to be responsible for but now other lives that depend on you. If one hasn't grown themselves, then best it should be zero kids for them, Good to see that you reconginize about yourself. Best that you don't reproduce based on your views about children.
LOL, ok...nice unwarranted insult flying outta nowhere. Anyway, maturity has 0 to do w/ having kids. Anyone w/ working sex organs can have them. In fact, many ppl having kids think they are contributing to the world but are actually adding 0 and and in fact worsening it and diluting the gene pool. In an ideal world, they should screen potential parents like they screen dogs from reputable breeders before mating.
Sr. Member
Jan 2, 2015
974 posts
364 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Aug 19th, 2017 2:35 am
LOL, ok...nice unwarranted insult flying outta nowhere. Anyway, maturity has 0 to do w/ having kids. Anyone w/ working sex organs can have them. In fact, many ppl having kids think they are contributing to the world but are actually adding 0 and and in fact worsening it and diluting the gene pool. In an ideal world, they should screen potential parents like they screen dogs from reputable breeders before mating.
Nothing I said was intended to be insulating, and tell what part you disagree with.

'You are mostly correct that you loose a lot of freedom when you have kids, you have not only yourself to be responsible for but now other lives that depend on you. '. - I don't know of a good parent that hasn't felt a lost freedom, and knows they great responsibilities of having a child. Is this false?

'If one hasn't grown themselves, then best it should be zero kids for them,'. It does take a great deal of responsibility which comes with growth to accept this. Until one has grown to accept this, it should be zero kids for them. IS this false?

'Good to see that you reconginize about yourself.' You personally stated that you didn't want kids. Anyone who does not want kids, should not have them.

'Best that you don't reproduce based on your views about children.' Didn't you make a thread about assuming another family only wants a boy, but cannot see that though this is a possibility. It is also just as likely they just really want to have a large family. Did you not say that people should have zero children when clearly this thread is about people who already have 2 or 3 children?

All of this put toghetr indicated that you are clearly one who should not have children roght now. Are you telling me that you think you are ready to have kids (not just being able to donate sperm)? That you would want a child and be willing to give up thereedom and everything associated with kids in their best intersect? If so, then I have misread you, and then can see how you may be insulted. Otherwise the truth may hurt when it written.

I was agreeing with . . Anyone CAN have kids if the have the working parts, but doesn't mean they SHOULD have kid. For those whose really enjoy kids, then they are more likely not regretting more kids.
On a 'smart' device that isn't always so smart. So please forgive the autocorrects and typos. If it brothers you, then don't read my posts, but don't waste my time correcting me. If you can get past the typos, then my posts generally have some value.
Sr. Member
Jan 2, 2015
974 posts
364 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Aug 19th, 2017 12:00 am
I'm trying to be +ive for the OP. The right # to have is 0 imo. Once you have kids, you can forget about freedom lol.

Ofc one can choose if they have the means a la designer babies, having both sex twins at one shot is the 'best' way, over and done. :D
I really don't think that you are truly trying to be helpful to the OP. You're posting appeared to be more out of posturing for moreyour other thread and is toungue and cheek. You are being 'positive' by telling OP who has not mention anything about gender that they can try for the 2 and 2, which is clearly not what advice they are looking for. You then make a comment about designers babies and twins, which by my math even if that was a choice would give OP 5 kids. Then you say zero babies is the idea number whIce has nothing to do with OPs question.
On a 'smart' device that isn't always so smart. So please forgive the autocorrects and typos. If it brothers you, then don't read my posts, but don't waste my time correcting me. If you can get past the typos, then my posts generally have some value.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7366 posts
918 upvotes
Toronto
Macx2mommy wrote:
Aug 19th, 2017 10:03 am
Nothing I said was intended to be insulating, and tell what part you disagree with.

'You are mostly correct that you loose a lot of freedom when you have kids, you have not only yourself to be responsible for but now other lives that depend on you. '. - I don't know of a good parent that hasn't felt a lost freedom, and knows they great responsibilities of having a child. Is this false?

'If one hasn't grown themselves, then best it should be zero kids for them,'. It does take a great deal of responsibility which comes with growth to accept this. Until one has grown to accept this, it should be zero kids for them. IS this false?

'Good to see that you reconginize about yourself.' You personally stated that you didn't want kids. Anyone who does not want kids, should not have them.

'Best that you don't reproduce based on your views about children.' Didn't you make a thread about assuming another family only wants a boy, but cannot see that though this is a possibility. It is also just as likely they just really want to have a large family. Did you not say that people should have zero children when clearly this thread is about people who already have 2 or 3 children?

All of this put toghetr indicated that you are clearly one who should not have children roght now. Are you telling me that you think you are ready to have kids (not just being able to donate sperm)? That you would want a child and be willing to give up thereedom and everything associated with kids in their best intersect? If so, then I have misread you, and then can see how you may be insulted. Otherwise the truth may hurt when it written.

I was agreeing with . . Anyone CAN have kids if the have the working parts, but doesn't mean they SHOULD have kid. For those whose really enjoy kids, then they are more likely not regretting more kids.
I think that's pretty pedantic of you to quote yourself and try to relay content from my other thread in order to snidely slip in a barb...nice try...or maybe it's your poorly-written English that failed to get your pt across, but anyway.

There's no truth hurting, having kids is not a progression to maturity. It's just a choice and there are many immature parents out there. It's pretty clear that the avg # of kids is definitely not 3 or 4 but rather less than 2 and heading towards 1. My personal opinion is to have 0 but in the spirit of the OP I gave my suggestion in my 1st post to the OP, not sure why you bothered to reply when not addressed to you.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7366 posts
918 upvotes
Toronto
Macx2mommy wrote:
Aug 19th, 2017 10:11 am
I really don't think that you are truly trying to be helpful to the OP. You're posting appeared to be more out of posturing for moreyour other thread and is toungue and cheek. You are being 'positive' by telling OP who has not mention anything about gender that they can try for the 2 and 2, which is clearly not what advice they are looking for. You then make a comment about designers babies and twins, which by my math even if that was a choice would give OP 5 kids. Then you say zero babies is the idea number whIce has nothing to do with OPs question.
AHA, gotcha, your sneaky agenda to bring in my other thread is exposed by your own reply.

...and no I'm trying to help OP because s/he wanted #4 and asked for reasons pro/con. The other stuff is only in response to you and not OP and not included in my 1st reply. In other words, you chose to bring my other thread into this discussion, not I. Stop derailing this thread and just reply in the proper one. Crazy.
Member
Apr 14, 2015
476 posts
109 upvotes
Tsuu T'Ina, AB
I found kid number four way easier than kid number three. That was the first time I felt like I had a handle on things with a new baby. By then, you pretty much know what you're doing. We had a bigger space between three and four, which also gave some breathing room.
My biggest regret is actually that we didn't have the fourth sooner. Kids close in age are a real challenge when they are very young but it's great as they get older and really play together. Our youngest is lonely when all the other kids are at school.
Four kids is a bit of work but when I see someone with only one or two kids it looks like they always have to entertain them. I can get some things done while the kids play together. Four is a nice balance because two kids get tired of each other and three can leave an odd one out. Four is ideal for swapping playmates.
That's just my thoughts. You get used to what you have and make it work. I can't ever imagine regretting a child I have once you make it past those first couple years, which are always challenging.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 27, 2009
3421 posts
1352 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
greg123 wrote:
Aug 17th, 2017 11:02 pm
Think in this day and age 3 kids is the norm, wondering how many parents out there regret having a 4th if money was not an issue.

We are early 30s first 3 are all spaced 2 years apart.
I think 3 is actually higher than the norm these days. As far as people regretting having a 4th, I can't imagine that they do. I am the youngest of 5 and my mom said really after the first couple it doesn't make much difference lol. However, I was raised in the 70s/80s before every child was treated like special snowflakes and given princess parties, etc.
Deal Addict
Apr 9, 2008
2733 posts
197 upvotes
Toronto
People who have the most resources and probably more socially aware want the least children.

not a good sign.
Member
User avatar
Jan 14, 2007
382 posts
48 upvotes
GTA North
Chickinvic wrote:
Aug 25th, 2017 10:20 am
I think 3 is actually higher than the norm these days. As far as people regretting having a 4th, I can't imagine that they do. I am the youngest of 5 and my mom said really after the first couple it doesn't make much difference lol. However, I was raised in the 70s/80s before every child was treated like special snowflakes and given princess parties, etc.
@greg123 The above is very true.

We have 4 kids and no regrets at all. They are currently 23 21 19 and 17 so we've been dealing with them for a while.

My wife and I both came from families with 3 kids. My parents said they always regretted not have 4 which could a reason both my sister and I went on to have 4 each.
Deal Guru
Dec 31, 2005
13191 posts
666 upvotes
greg123 wrote:
Aug 17th, 2017 11:02 pm
Think in this day and age 3 kids is the norm, wondering how many parents out there regret having a 4th if money was not an issue.

We are early 30s first 3 are all spaced 2 years apart.
3 kids the norm? We have 3 and I only know one other person at work and no one in our friend circles
Sr. Member
User avatar
May 12, 2009
683 posts
256 upvotes
About half of everyone I know has three, a few have four or more. It's certainly not uncommon. If we could have afforded a stay-at-home parent we would have gone for a 4th.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 12, 2004
9161 posts
3254 upvotes
Ottawa
Macx2mommy wrote:
Aug 18th, 2017 1:38 pm
What happens if the forth child is the 'wrong' gender.
Seems like China and India have solved that problem. Oh wait...
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.
- Mark Twain
Deal Addict
Feb 20, 2009
1062 posts
167 upvotes
I think three is far from the norm, I'm 28 and I have one friend with 3 I remember when she had her first she said she wanted 6 or 7 now that she's had 3 she says she is absolutely definitively done. I had my first with my wife when we were 22 and my daughter has both a physical and mental disability as such my wife was only just now able to return to work and isn't making a whole lot of money. If my daughter wasn't such a challenge we would have probably already had #2 by now and I can't even imagine the challenge of 3 let alone 4.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 15, 2005
3014 posts
199 upvotes
In my circle of friends and family, the norm is 2 kids. Off the top of my head: 8 couples with 2 kids, 4 couples with 1 kid and 2 couples with 3 kids.

We have quite a bit of help but are absolutely done with 2. My wife would like a daughter and if we were younger than she would consider it. Even though I don't do that much during the first 6 months, I do not miss those years. I love my kids but these days I just feel run down.
Are you a new parent and looking for freebies for your newborn, go here:
Freebies for your Newborn

Top