If kids came in bulk?

[QueSyrahSyrah]

Lighthearted: DH and I are idly watching a show about larger families (not the Radfords) and got to discussing if kids came in minimum numbers, what would your cut off be?

So if you could only have either 0 kids or 4 kids, 0 or 6, or 0 or 10, what number would it be that made you decide against it altogether?

For DH and I if more than 2 were compulsory we'd both rather have none.

In our imaginary scenario this doesn't affect your present financial situation, you'd be equally as comfortable (or not) as you are now, so primarily considering the level of chaos / time / organisation / share of attention / impact on the wider family etc.

Also in the imaginary scenario, they wouldn't necessarily be multiple births, but if you'd had one you'd be committed to having another X amount (let's ignore the obvious health / autonomy / human rights issues here for the sake of lighthearted discussion).

5 for me, I have 4 and it’s lovely but if another had been added to the mix then I think it would have been too many for us to juggle.

I have 2, I’d go up to 4 (no plans for more dc) but if 5 was the minimum, no way.

The worst case scenario for me would be zero so I'd have any number to avoid that.

If money/ time/ body/ birth etc were all not issues I'd have had 5.

I think it'd be very difficult to really know more than that many.

I feel as you do - I'd rather have none than more than 2

For DH and I if more than 2 were compulsory we'd both rather have none.

Same. And some days, 0 or one.

I could prob stretch to 3 but not overly enjoy day or day life- 4? I’d rather have none!

Have six, would honestly rather 20 than none. But like having six, would have seriously thought about eight if we had two more rooms.

I’d have loved four, that would probably be my cutoff though!

Ive got 3 already so would go to 4

Hmm interesting. I think if its always x amount or 0, there'd be no cut off as personally none would be my worst amount. In real life 4 would be my maximum!

@Ducksurprise I'm glad you love having your 6😃

I always wanted 5 when I was younger.

I'm 53 now, so unless in your fantasy you can make me young again I'd say 3 now, 2 years apart. But 59 with a newborn 2yr, & 4yo... EEEK

I really wanted 4 or 5. Pregnant with my second and last, for various reasons. I think it would have to be a high number to make me say no to any. Maybe 10?

20!

And I have 1.

Looking at the people I know, the parents of onlies are much happier than everyone else!

I think 7. I could manage 6 (in la-la land where we can afford it) if the alternative was 0.
In real life I have 3 and it's the perfect number for me. Never wanted number 4.

@TooMuchToDoTooLittleInclination oh I agree, I couldn't go back to little ones now, my youngest is 12, too old for toddlers now.

1. I have 3 and I wish I'd had 4. I'm 44 now so nope.

4 but only before I turned 35 (which was when I had my 3rd).

Ideally I'd have 2 year intervals. Reality I have a 2year and a 5yr thanks to PND second time, took me a longer time to decide to go for the third.

4s a nice even number. Although actually it would screw up the car and house situation. I wish my youngest had a playmate.

Any more than one is just too much work😁

Hmm. I have one and would really not like to have none, so my cutoff would be high. It would depend on the age gaps too. Probably ten as long as it wasn't ten babies or toddlers all at once.