JustBecause

Generally having children is to the detriment of the previous status of the woman in almost all areas other than being a mother itself, most obvious being career - it is pretty rare for ones previous career to be enhanced by having children is it not, unless related directly to children & parenting perhaps. But this can be rationalised by all the benefits of being a mother. So as women have become more educated in all areas, particularly in matters of controlling fertility, fertility has declined as they see the realities of being disadvantaged by having kids in comparison to men, on whom it does have such a great impact. This is by no means universal but a trend. Seems quite clear to me as a generalisation.

JustBecause

Yes, agreed, but how can you evaluate what determines a "loving home" over a period of 16yrs or so ? (esp when so many marriages/partnerships end these days, is it up to 2 out of 3 yet? not that that infers an unhappy home automatically in all cases) I'm sure my parents thought they were doing grand & I think I had a great childhood overall, but elements like the loneliness, socialisation, conflict management, etc only came to light when I left home.

If you ask most kids when they can understand basically what a sibling is I think most would say they wanted one. Until you point out sharing of toys, etc

PamE

I have to confess I haven't read the wiki article. I understood when it said fertility it meant actual ability to have children, as opposed to having a desire to control one's fertility. Smarter women have more choices, so more of them choose to control their fertility ummm that is not exactly a ground-breaking concept, and not a link between fertility and intelligence, it's just a link between intelligence and greater choice.

Waiting Room

I would say a loving home is the one in which the child is born into. You can not control the future. One or both parents may die before the child is 16, for example. However if when the child is born it is born into a family who want it and have as far as they can, ensured they can provide for it and have it's welfare as their prime concern, then that is a loving family. I know many people born into families with problems who had happy childhoods, I also know people born into families with problems who had miserable childhoods. Your parents sound like they provided a loving home despite their problems which is the best any of us can hope to do.

JustBecause

Oh, you mean the rising childbearing age aspect? If you have the choice wouldn't you hold off being disadvantaged for as long as possible? Why would one delberately sabotage their social life, career, figure (!), future prospects, health, sex life (!!), etc until they had decided they had experienced enough or earnt enough or run out of time biologically? Medical advances with maternity care, infertility etc also contribute I guess, not to mention sleb culture showing older mothers of course.

JustBecause

Ok, agree, it is all about intentions as that is all we can influence at any given moment. But to play devil's advocate, can it be said that having a sibling is in general better for the child's welfare therefore all parents should intend to have more than one child to assure it (& therefore the sibling too) a better environment to grow up in ??

PamE

Given the chance again I would start a family earlier actually, but that wasn't the path my life took. Personally I don't feel disadvantaged at all, quite the opposite in fact - but I can see why someone who saw motherhood in such a negative light as yourself might want to put it off as long as possible. Each to their own

No, imo, cos there are so many more factors impacting a child's welfare than whether or not they have a sibling. As I said before, imo creating a sibling is not in itself a good enough reason to have another child.

Charismatic

You might be an outlier but it’s still a fact.
Too young, don’t like children etc.
No but they did do it for other reasons prior to the introduction of inheritance law and pensions.

Turban Explorer

If you're not convinced you want a second don't have one . The world doesn't need more humans living on it that's one certain thing! I have a few friends who were single children and they all seem very well adjusted and successful.

Family of 3

We have one. We didn't want kids at all for a long time, then changed our minds. We couldn't decide about having another and then for a variety of reasons (legal (he's adopted, as second would have been, and once we got PR it would have got more complicated), medical (I'm not meant to lift anything heavier than 10kgs)) we couldn't.

It feels right for us. He gets all our attention, we've more money for schools/holidays etc. Luckily he's very sociable.

Most people I know don't get on that well with their siblings anyway (love the party story, D).

And re adoping an older child to avoid the baby days TE (post 32): I'm sure you were tongue in cheek but in fact adopting an older child, who may well have lots of psychological issues relating to attachment, is by no means the "easy" option.

Turban Explorer

I wasn't being tongue in cheek. I don't have any experience in child nurturing but I was thinking we wouldn't require a) a 'pedigree' (ie, our own genes) or b) a baby - and that we would be happy to face the challenge of helping someone who might be disadvantaged and isn't wanted anywhere else. Whether we're being too ambitious I don't know yet (and are still very undecided)...

Family of 3

That was our thinking too, but it was only later we realised how potentially problematic it could be.

If you do start to consider adoption seriously, PM me and I'll recommend some books.

Japonica

Lots of good advice here Pam. I'm reading from your posts that you're still early days in, right? I remember going to see my OB for the six week check-up after our daughter came along and he asked me how things were going and I said to him, straight-faced, "I don't know why anyone would ever do this again."

He laughed and said, "Yeah, I don't either, but they keep coming back every two years."

We actually have 3.5 years between our two. It honestly took me a good two years to come around to the idea of having one more (and I had him at 38). Now that we're done, two suits us perfectly...Personally, I know I'd feel more stressed, stretched too thin with time, and worried about money if we had one more.

I asked my daughter (6) as a joke one day if she'd like one more sibling. She looked at me and said, "No way!" She gets that the more kids in our house, the less time for her.

That said, my best friend is an only. She's 18 years older than I am and the last five years of her life have been hellish having to care for her elderly parents on her own. Her mom had Alzheimers, her father has dementia and health problems. She's been burnt out...after their conditions worsened to the point that they both required placement in a care home, she was there every two days to tend them. Now, I don't know if a sibling would automatically have helped her, but at least she'd have someone to talk to about it, make some of the decisions (or bounce ideas off of), perhaps share in some of the duties. Her mother passed away 18 months ago...but she's still actively involved in looking after her father.

Good luck with whatever you decide. You and your partner will be the only ones who know what the optimal family size is for you.

PamE

Heard it, heard it....sooooo many times
Not such early days, Miss M will be 1 at the start of September

Thanks for share & wishes

PamE

All comments have been most interesting, as I knew they would be, cheers. I shall resurrect this thread in a couple of years and let ya'll know how things panned out