I have had this conversation a bunch of times with people and recently with my girl and I have always said you have to limit it to two children at the most. Really having one is ideal if the kid isnt determined to be a f*** up,you might need the second just for back up so you dont look like a horrible parent if atleast one of them turns out good . You can invest a lot of your time and money on that one kid and it wont be so much stress on the parents. I just dont see how in this day and age couples want to have 4...5...6...10 f***ing kids. I am sure the majority will agree with me but I just wanted to see.

This question is really all opinion. I wouldnt mind 3, but thats because my first is a stepdaughter and I would like to have two children with my wife. If we end up sticking with just 2, I wont be crushed.

For me, it'd all depend on what my wife and I could afford. I wouldn't want to live outside of our means, and as a result, have our children grow up with less opportunities available to them (i.e., such as which schools they attend).

 

Ideally, I'd want two boys (to pass on the name, which isn't very common) and two girls.

 

This is an interesting topic because both of my parents are from large families: my father 13, my mother 10. In our family, it's just the three of us and my brother; whom my dad already had from a previous relationship. I remember asking my parents sometime in the past why they didn't have more children, and both agreed that growing up with a large family was a tremendous burden on their parents. Having children was in itself a full-time job, in addition to their other full-time jobs. The oldest children in both families were often more of a parent than the actual parents. In my father's family, the difference between oldest and youngest was 24 years. Although, of all the siblings from both families, none had more than four children. I'd like to believe everyone learned their lesson.

 

Neither grandparents were overly religious, either. Both families were probably the final remnants of the industrial revolution, "have 10 kids to support the family," mindset.

Edited December 13, 200916 yr by Flash Tizzle

Two.

 

Coming from a parent, all I can say is never get out numbered.

Ideally, I'd want two boys (to pass on the name, which isn't very common) and two girls.

 

That's exactly what we had. Two boys and two girls. I think that it's ideal.

For me, my one daughter is the right amount.

She is a terrific kid, and she's all we need.

I think 3 is a great number. But yeah, this is definitely a bit down the road for me, so my opinion may very well change depending on 1) my wife; and 2) my financial situation.

Edited December 13, 200916 yr by dasox24

Two.

 

Coming from a parent, all I can say is never get out numbered.

 

That's the number I always wanted when (or if) I have kids. Though I wouldn't mind 3 at all since I got a younger brother and sister though they get on my nerves..

I'm more impressed that f***s isn't censored in the title

Girl. Boy. Done.

1.3145123532461235612362344568324357 kids. No more, no less.

 

Girl. Boy. Done.

 

Ok, so we all know how you get kids...

Boy. Girl. Done

 

Two hands - two Kids

Two of us - two of them

Two car windows - two kids

 

Two just seems like the best number. Now I kind of wish there had been a different egg donor, but that is a different story.

Two to replace yourselves, its the responsible thing to do.

Two to replace yourselves, its the responsible thing to do.

 

More responsible would be for us to have less than two offspring per family because the human population is already to large to be considered sustainable. I already blew that with my second kid, of course.

Why should having kids be practical?

With as often as the guys *ahem*, around here, I'm surprised that actually reproducing is even considered. <_>

More responsible would be for us to have less than two offspring per family because the human population is already to large to be considered sustainable. I already blew that with my second kid, of course.

If that's what happened, you really screwed up.

 

2 or 3. I come from a family of 5 kids which includes 2 sets of twins. It's okay, but as the middle child I must say I wish there were only 3 of us. It's tough keeping track of every kid.

We all know that 8 wasn't the magic number thanks to Jon and Kate.

 

But that 18 kids and counting family is still together so.... I'm gonna go with somewhere in the 15-20 range.

We all know that 8 wasn't the magic number thanks to Jon and Kate.

 

But that 18 kids and counting family is still together so.... I'm gonna go with somewhere in the 15-20 range.

 

That's a big load you're heaping on the Breeders.

For me, it'd all depend on what my wife and I could afford. I wouldn't want to live outside of our means, and as a result, have our children grow up with less opportunities available to them (i.e., such as which schools they attend).

 

Ideally, I'd want two boys (to pass on the name, which isn't very common) and two girls.

 

This is an interesting topic because both of my parents are from large families: my father 13, my mother 10. In our family, it's just the three of us and my brother; whom my dad already had from a previous relationship. I remember asking my parents sometime in the past why they didn't have more children, and both agreed that growing up with a large family was a tremendous burden on their parents. Having children was in itself a full-time job, in addition to their other full-time jobs. The oldest children in both families were often more of a parent than the actual parents. In my father's family, the difference between oldest and youngest was 24 years. Although, of all the siblings from both families, none had more than four children. I'd like to believe everyone learned their lesson.

 

Neither grandparents were overly religious, either. Both families were probably the final remnants of the industrial revolution, "have 10 kids to support the family," mindset.

Ditto. I want 4.

First and foremost, I believe it depends on your financial situation. If you can barely get by without kids, no reason to have a kid. Kids are extremely expensive.

 

Hopefully though I become financially sound and have at least 4 and the maximum being 7 or 8. Im old fashioned and want a big family. Coming from a decent sized family (4 siblings), I found growing up with siblings to be beneficial. In all reality, I only lived with 2 siblings and the oldest two were already in college by the time I was old enough to care.

 

I dont know, it all depends on what floats your boat.

 

Plus, once Im old and retired, I want grand kids to keep me occupied.

Edited December 15, 200916 yr by BearSox

More responsible would be for us to have less than two offspring per family because the human population is already to large to be considered sustainable. I already blew that with my second kid, of course.

 

To be fair, much of the unsustainable population growth is due to developing nations, especially India, where (as far as I'm aware), there are no restrictions to the number of children you can have, have a population up above 1 billion, and are no where near as industrialized as the US or even China. Developed nations, such as western Europe and the US, have actually seen their birth rate decrease over the 50 or so years.

That's a big load you're heaping on the Breeders.

 

That's what she said...