235 replies to this topic

[StephanieW]

Through a lot of thought lately, I have also realized that I don't think I am that great of a father to # 1. Apparently, people who know me think I am. But I still don't feel that way. I also don't feel like I'm that good of a husband, but people tell me otherwise. I'm not really for it or against it. I say I don't really want it, but I don't know if thats true. I do know that I am not willing to give up the free time I have with my son. When we are together, we click. He is my mini clone, it is very creepy. At this point in his life I love being able to take him out on the weekend and ride dirtbikes all day, and he loves it just as much as I do. I like being able to play soccer and baseball with him whenever I want. A baby would definately get in the way of this, or would it?

a baby would only get in the way if you let it get in the way.. if you use the baby as an excuse to NOT do things with your son...

[Robert Giacometti]

I'd do it again.. and probably knowing what I know now... would have had more...

but we only had 2...

Don't tell me your throwin in the towel!

You're still a young man and you work out, what happens if you hook up with one of those young babes at the "memo manor" and they want a kid?

[stacycam]

I feel that a lot with our son, he has no one to play with unless he goes to someone else's house or unless he plays with an adult.

Having a bro or sis to play with would be so good for him. Even with an age gap, there are a lot of things he will miss out on with out a sibling.

He will still not have anyone to play with. By the time baby #2 were old enough to play much of anything (probably 2 yo), your older son would be 12. There will be no common interests whatsoever.

I'm sure your older son will be interested in the little one, but by the time they are teenagers, most kids are busy with other things.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but just keep your expectations realistic.

[StephanieW]

He will still not have anyone to play with. By the time baby #2 were old enough to play much of anything (probably 2 yo), your older son would be 12. There will be no common interests whatsoever.

I'm sure your older son will be interested in the little one, but by the time they are teenagers, most kids are busy with other things.

I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but just keep your expectations realistic.

that is true! actually i didnt like when my mom had my brother ... i was left as the babysitter alllll the time..i was 13.. now with my sister it was OK.. i was still in that doll phase so i liked to dress her up..

[TawnyK]

My fiance' Dustin sides with Chris. I asked him. He says that if he had what Chris has he'd be really hesitant to do anything that would radically change it too.

[Andrea V]

My fiance' Dustin sides with Chris. I asked him. He says that if he had what Chris has he'd be really hesitant to do anything that would radically change it too.

but we could have more. Love and family is worth more then motorcycles and other material things.

[tessieca]

hun, you would never have to give up what you have with kid#1

All of the stuff you do and want to do with kid #1 you still will.

I am not sure why you think your relationship with kid#1 will change, or maybe I read it all wrong?????

You would just need to post twice as much to reach wife, kid 1 and kid 2.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

At this point in his life I love being able to take him out on the weekend and ride dirtbikes all day, and he loves it just as much as I do. I like being able to play soccer and baseball with him whenever I want. A baby would definately get in the way of this, or would it?

Yes, a baby gets in the way of doing what you want when you want. Your first baby did the same, and you learned to adjust. Having a second not only means more adjusting and compromise for the parents, but it also teaches the sibling about adjusting and flexibility -- lessons only children sometimes don't have the opportunity to learn.

I remember when I found out I was pregnant with our second child. I remember wondering how there would be enough love and enough time to go around. The love.... well, it happens as naturally as it does with a first child. Hearts have room for love for as many children as you decide to have. And the time? You make the time, you juggle, you take turns with your spouse, you carpool with friends and neighbors, you just work it out.

As special as your son is to you now, Chris, any other children you decide to have will also be special to you, each in his or her own way with his or her own unique personality and gifts. And after a while you will wonder what your life would have been like without this one or that one.

Sometimes couples "decide" or "agree" that they will or will not do something, but then life changes, values change, needs change. It isn't dishonest to have a change of heart; it would, however, be dishonest to have that change of heart and not discuss it with the partner. You discuss, you hear each other, you share your concerns, and then you decide. There is no crystal ball -- so you don't get to look ahead for a guarantee on how it will all work out. But if you decide to have another baby, if you love one another, if you commit to make it work, well... it will work.

I wish you both the best whatever you decide.

[bordercolliefan]

A lot of posts in this thread are extremely sentimental about the joys of holding a baby, the wonderful bonds that can form between siblings, etc.

So, I'm going to pour a bucket of cold water on all that. An essential part of parenthood is that BOTH parents are totally committed to it, come what may. That means that when the kid is throwing up in the middle of the night, both parents are there to help. If the kid is born with a severe disability, both parents undertake the huge amount of work required to address it. If the "kid" turns out to be twins or triplets, both parents rise to the feeding, diapering challenge.

If you berate ChrisV into agreeing to a second child, or--worse, get pregnant by stealth-- it creates too much opportunity for recriminations like, "You handle it! I didn't even want this kid!"

My point is: don't base your decision on a rosy picture of what life will be like. And don't try to convince ChrisV that he should agree because everything will be rosy and perfect. Kids can come with all different kinds of challenges, and you don't want to have a partner who was never really on board in the first place.

[Ronda]

I think going from one kid to two is harder than no kids to one.

I don't believe this would have been the case for us, since our one and only came almost seventeen years after we were married! Having another certainly wouldn't have been as earth-shattering as our first.

People are different, and people change. This can be the kind of thing that destroys a marriage, so you really need to talk it out. Better to have one with a daddy around than two to raise on your own, don't you think? On the other hand, if it is important enough to you to break up your marriage over it, then perhaps you should part company and find a different partner who also wants a child. Only you know exactly where your priorities are. The marriage or another child?

I likely would try to talk him into it if it was important to me, but I would never "trick" him and risk your relationship if that relationship is important to you.

This is very close to home, because I would have loved to have had a second child, myself. My husband said, "No way." I accepted it, in the end, but it is not an easy thing to do.

[Ronda]

See, the thing about this "thing" is. I don't want it, I did, about 4-8 years ago, but she didn't then. So I had to deal with the fact that we, at that time, both agreed that from this point on a new "thing" would never happen. Of course 4-8 years ago this "thing" would have complemented a "thing" we already have posession of quite well. I am going to be very honest, and some of this might be hard to understand. I generally do not like these "things" at all. I am very fortunate that the "thing" I have is perfect in my eyes. No matter what Andrea says a new "thing" will not be un-afordable, but I am not willing in any way shape or form to lose the financial freedom we have now. I do not have it in me for a new "thing". I am to selfish at this point for a new "thing". I can admit all of these faults. I am having a very good time with the "thing" we have now. Getting another "thing" will take away from the first "thing". I don't know if she knows this, but at times, I feel guilty for getting the first "thing" in this world. I would never subject a second "thing" to this world.

Children are the hope of this world, Chris! You could be denying us the person who cures all the world's ills. Who knows?

People have been saying since time began that the world is going you-know-where in a hand basket.

When Mom and Dad are gone, it's a lonely world for an only child.

(Just some other things to think about.)

[Ronda]

Then Andrea and I can do whatever we want whenever we want.

You probably need to put that idea to bed. All adults have responsibilities and can't do whatever they want whenever they want. You have to wait for retirement for that kind of freedom, and, even then, it's not the freedom of a child, freedom from worry about the necessary and the mundane.

[Nancy]

Through a lot of thought lately, I have also realized that I don't think I am that great of a father to # 1. Apparently, people who know me think I am. But I still don't feel that way. I also don't feel like I'm that good of a husband, but people tell me otherwise. I'm not really for it or against it. I say I don't really want it, but I don't know if thats true. I do know that I am not willing to give up the free time I have with my son. When we are together, we click. He is my mini clone, it is very creepy. At this point in his life I love being able to take him out on the weekend and ride dirtbikes all day, and he loves it just as much as I do. I like being able to play soccer and baseball with him whenever I want. A baby would definately get in the way of this, or would it?

I don't think it would get in the way of your relationship with your son nearly as much as you think it would. At the age of nine, you and your son are growing to be not just father and son, but buddies. That's something that's not going to go away. You'd have as much fun running to Walmart together as going dirtbiking. It's not the activity, but the relationship that's important. With the age difference, you will always have time for the two of you. The second one would have different interests at any given time.

Think of it this way - you've got more than one friend right? There are friends you do activity A with and friends that you do activity B with. Does having more than one friend get in the way of your other friendships? You go dirtbiking with your older son during the day, and watch Sesame Street with your younger one in the evening. They'll both have just as much fun, and you get to create connections with both of them.

Nancy

[chris v]

I just want to add to this that in no way would Andrea ever trick me or do this behind my back. It would never happen, I hope those of you that brought it up don't feel she would do this. If it was just hypothetical than thats one thing. But, I think it would show a severe lack in character on her part if it was true. She is a very good mother and wife. She puts up with me so that must mean she likes me.

[wrabbit]

A lot of posts in this thread are extremely sentimental about the joys of holding a baby, the wonderful bonds that can form between siblings, etc.

So, I'm going to pour a bucket of cold water on all that. An essential part of parenthood is that BOTH parents are totally committed to it, come what may. That means that when the kid is throwing up in the middle of the night, both parents are there to help. If the kid is born with a severe disability, both parents undertake the huge amount of work required to address it. If the "kid" turns out to be twins or triplets, both parents rise to the feeding, diapering challenge.

If you berate ChrisV into agreeing to a second child, or--worse, get pregnant by stealth-- it creates too much opportunity for recriminations like, "You handle it! I didn't even want this kid!"

My point is: don't base your decision on a rosy picture of what life will be like. And don't try to convince ChrisV that he should agree because everything will be rosy and perfect. Kids can come with all different kinds of challenges, and you don't want to have a partner who was never really on board in the first place.

Way too much common sense here. But I agree totally.

My thing is....if in doubt, rule it out. If it's an issue that parents have to have long debates about, I'd say it's a bad idea! I think both parents should be on board 100%, when deciding to have children. Not one pushing and one resisting.

Oh sure, Chris can be talked into it, but is that wise or fair?

The guy doesn't want more kids.....deal with it! What's wrong with wanting to have time for yourself and the kid you already have? What's wrong with wanting to retire early? What's wrong with retiring before you're too old to enjoy it?

Of course there would be a need to spend time with the new child!!!! What are you going to do, decide to place more importance on the older one because he came first? It's silly to say that there will not be times when the baby is sick, your wife will need you to stay home and help out. The fact is, the more children you have, the less time you have. When the new child is of an age when he wants to do something different than your older child, then what? The younger child may be totally different than your current one. Then you have to choose which kid to do what with and when.

Children are a very big expense and responsibly, plus they take a lot of time. Play that down at your own peril.