Active discussions

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Larger families

Find out all about large family cars, holidays and more right here.

Original poster

please persuade me that #4 is NOT a good idea...

29 replies

rainbowdays · 08/11/2008 22:13

I have seen many threads here asking for convincing too have a 4th or more!

And I have managed to convince dh to try for no.4, but now I am wondering if this was not such a good idea,

I need to hear all the reasons why stopping at 3 is a good idea and why number 4 could be a complete nightmare. This way if after reading all your excellent reasons I still feel like another baby then I will know for sure it is /is not the right idea.

My reasons for it not being a good idea are:

  • At age 40 now I risk health problems for both myself and any baby.
  • I have an absolutely wonderful 7 month old baby boy currently asleep in my arms, and I should just enjoy him and not be thinking of another baby already.
  • I had horrendous pregnancies with my two boys (although pregnacy with my daughter was ok)
  • I would not have the choice to go back to work, certainly if their was a 4th childcare cost.

please help me with other ideas.....

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
goldilocksandmylittlebear · 08/11/2008 22:21

Why was your DH against it?

cheesesarnie · 08/11/2008 22:23

i woul if i could but i cant so i wont.

im one of 4 and its nice.

whyme2 · 08/11/2008 22:26

4 is nice,but there is the hassle of car size, house size, fridge size, laundry pile size.
But I would still choose four again.

angrypixie · 08/11/2008 22:29

No help from me, I have 3 (youngest 9 months) and am longing for another but on paper it seems like a really bad idea;

Also 40 - potential health risks
Less time for each current child
Toll on body
Sleepless nights
Cost

1 and 2 are my major reasons for holding back (that, and DP really against the idea)

whyme2 · 08/11/2008 22:32

angrypixie - I forgot about the body damage thing. It does take it out of you physically more each time in pregnancy and recovery time. This is why we're not having more despie dh's protests.

ButterflyBessie · 08/11/2008 22:32

I have 4, my last was born when I was still (just) 38 and it is great

Go for it, I bet you regret it if you don't

angrypixie · 08/11/2008 22:42

My body has struggled to recover after number 3. I'm sure it just all 'pinged back' after the 1st.

I also haven't got my head around the question do I want 4 teenagers in the house as much as I want another scrummy, scrunchy new born

sorkycake · 09/11/2008 13:46

I'm pg with no.4 after persuading Dh. It's been the hardest pg physically, yet. I'm 34!
We have decided to stay put in our 3 bed house for the next year and then we know we will have to move.
We have just had to buy a Galaxy to fit us all in.
We are now realising that a chest freezer in the futility is now classed as one of our essential items.
I will go back to work as I only work one day anyway and Dh does that childcare, but who'll want to look after 4 kids! All under 7!!

I waited until Ds had turned 1 before trying again, I'm looking forward to having 4, but still have days where I think it's one of my stupider ideas.

Why not wait until he gets past his 1st birthday and revisit the idea?

MeMySonAndI · 09/11/2008 13:48

I'm one of 3, and as a part of such sibling group I highly recommend to go for the 4th one.

juuule · 09/11/2008 15:34

Errm don't think I can. So I'll keep schtum. I'll maybe come back to this thread when I'm having a bad day.

belgo · 09/11/2008 15:38

how many do you have juuule? Is it 9 or 10?

juuule · 09/11/2008 15:40

Just the 9 Belgo. Never managed to get into double figures

juuule · 09/11/2008 15:41

Don't know why that was a wink - should have been a

belgo · 09/11/2008 15:46

I think three is enough for me. I'm sure I'll start feeling broody again soon though!

Here are my reasons for knowing that having a fourth is a bad idea:

Not enough room in the house
It would mean that going back to work would be very hard
Holidays even harder work and more expensive
The expense in general
The stress and noise levels of having so many children

Relating to pregnancy:
Don't want to risk the stress of more miscarriages
Don't want my varicose veins to get worse
Scared of giving birth and losing blood again.

juuule · 09/11/2008 15:50

Good reasons. You have far more sense and willpower than me, Belgo.

Poledra · 09/11/2008 15:52

MeMySonAndI, why was 3 so bad for you? I have three and will not be having a fourth (weeping next to the SCBU cot of your 12-hour baby is an experience I do not want to repeat, thanks), so any pointers on making the 3-sibling-family less painful for my children would be much appreciated. My three are all girls, if thta makes any difference.

belgo · 09/11/2008 15:53

or rather my dh has more willpower and sense then me!

MeMySonAndI · 09/11/2008 16:42

We were 3 girls, and through out our lives we have been friends with one and excluded another. It just went for phases, a couple of years of one being excluded, then the other, then the other... and so on

Saw the same pattern with DS and exBF children, and in other 3 sibling groups of my family. However, I appreciate my parents had more than enough with just us 3

So... it is my take, but since I was quite young I thought that I would go for an even number... now, I ended up with an only child but that's life

luckylady74 · 09/11/2008 16:48

Ladies - you do realise that it's your hormones and not your heart telling you to reproduce? Having a 9 month old is the classic time to feel broody - something to do with weaning and your body recovering after your last birth.

What I would say is wait say 6 mths (what's that in the scheme of a child's life or even your biological clock) and if you still want one then it's really your heart and not just hormones.
I told my 3 last night that we can't have another because I can't fit any more in the car - I meant it too!

MrsWeasley · 09/11/2008 16:51

I have 4 and love it, if had the choice again I would still want 4 or maybe 6!
I was one of 3 and hated it.

sorry

LongStory · 09/11/2008 17:29

Rainbowdays,

I have three (b8,g6,b3) and it's fantastic and had a rather spectacular accident in May - did you know the chance of twins rises with age and subsequent pregnancies. Am full of trepidation about new arrivals as I am the main earner - be warned...

Also the usual nightmares over car, bedroom, clothing storage, routines, cost. Still, I get to wind up lots of health visitors which is fun. (I told them our three legged cat was due to my previous PND!!!) And sure they'll be gorgeous.

luckylady74 · 09/11/2008 17:35

I think 38 is the prime multiple pregnancy age - I was early at 34!

angrypixie · 09/11/2008 20:09

LuckyLady great post re heart and hormones. I guess I'll sit tight and see how I feel although time is running out and I would love another 18 month ish gap if I was going to have no 4

Original poster
rainbowdays · 10/11/2008 22:04

My dh was against it initally as he was worried about finacial implications when he does not have a permanent job, but he said that same about ttc dc3, and now absolutely thinks it was his idea and a great one - typical male. He is fully around the idea of dc4 now, even when I warned him this week that it was "danger time" he said lets go for it and see if dc4 appears.

The problem is it is too easy in some ways as we alreay have the car to seat 6 and a five bedroom house. With regards to time and wait to see, if I wait until my baby is a year old I would be giving birth at 42 if (and it is unlikely to happen that quickly) I got pregnant immediately. I really do not want to be doing nappy changes at age 45, I would like to be past nappies by then. Oh decisions, decisions.

belgo - great reasons thank you.

lucky - I agree hormones are to blame too, although I think my heart also always wanted 4, I am going to have to be really strict and strong with myself to stop at 3.

Thank you all for your suggestions or comments of can't help with reasons! I am still undecided. If someone could promise me a happy healthy easy-going baby girl for next August, I would jump at it. The question is would I be able for a sick child or disabled or just plain awkward non-sleeper? If I was 10 years younger I would not have any doubts, we would definitely be trying for a forth child. It is purely my age that is making me hesitate. Do I take the risk?

OP posts:
KatieDD · 10/11/2008 22:16

Oh god I'm ten years younger and still utterly torn.
It's so hard for all the reason you said, plus I would have a 6 year gap and my eldest needs and doesn't get enough attention already
I wish I could have an accident but we'd have to have IVF so a definate decision to be made.