Mother Talkers

Environmentalist Considering Third Child and Population Growth

by Treena

Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:23:49 AM PDT

Thank you for the thoughtful diary, Treena. This is something I grapple with, too. -Elisa


I consider myself pretty environmental aware.  We're definitely not hard core about it, but try to be aware of our family's impact on the environment and make pretty major decisions to minimize it.  A few things we've done to try to be more environmentally friendly:
-Chose to live in a place where we could live with one car.  The kids and I often get around on public transportation or by foot and my husband bikes to work in warm weather.  (Our one car is a gas guzzling minivan, though.)
-Use reusable items instead of disposable when possible, like cloth napkins and canvas shopping bags.
-We used cloth diapers exclusively for several months when we had two kids in diapers, but then switched back to disposables eventually.
-The kids and I are vegetarian, mostly for environmental reasons.
-Give money regularly to environmental organizations, including becoming carbon neutral.

So we're far from perfect, and it's hard to consider yourself an environmentalist without being a hypocrite in some ways, but we try hard to be conscious of the environmental footprint of our family.

The issue I'm facing now is that I really, really want a third (and maybe a fourth) child.  I know every person we add to the earth is just going to use up more resources, and I'm having a hard time justifying adding another person to the earth.  I like to think that if we raise the kid "right" he or she will have less of an impact than most, but I think that's a pretty weak argument.  (Although I do also see the kinds of people in the US who usually have enormous families, and worry about how that will play out in the long run.)

Adoption seems to be the obvious answer, and I'm totally open to that, but I can't get my husband on board. We had a big conversation about it over the weekend, and agreed to revisit it again in a month, but he was pretty seriously against it for many reasons (some good reasons, some not so good).   I feel like I need to respect his opinion and not push the adoption thing, since it's such a big decision that he should have absolute veto power.

So I'm looking for advice or thoughts on how I can justify my desire for a third child with my concern for the environment.  We could certainly give more money to environmental organizations to counteract our larger family's impact on the earth, but that feels like trying to buy off guilt.  I could try to be even more environmentally conscious with the next kid, like possibly doing elimination communication, but that's still making a person who is going to live the rest of his/her life using the earth's resources.  I think raising them environmentally aware is great, but obviously no guarantee that they'll follow your values.  I've jokingly said that if we have a third, we need to commit that kid to a lifetime of environmental activism, so he/she could be someone like Al Gore whose existence has probably had a negative environmental impact.  But obviously that's only going to set the kid up for some major therapy bills.

Please share your thoughts and opinions.

Tags: environmentalism (all tags)

Permalink | 42 comments

  • that's part of why we adopted (0 / 0)

    disclaimer:not enough coffee...thoughts may be disjointed, not fully developed, harsh sounding, and/or filled with spelling/grammer mistakes.

    I refused to bring more that two people into our world.  My folks used to tell me as a kid, "only reproduce yourself and your spouse/partner".  I was very little when my mom got me started on the concept (this was back in the 60's....she also used to say, "any cat can have kittens" which is harsh, but true...bit of a "hippy" in that she breastfed when it was really unpopular)

    I think many people are reluctant to adopt because they've bought into what I call the "oprah"/TV stereotypes about adoption.  Even some adoptive parents believe many of the worst adoption stereotypes.  They worry that the children will grow up to embrace someone else in an emotionally charged made-for-TV reunion. A small, but visible group of adoptees;certainly their decision;but creates a belief that all adoptees are out searching for some elusive, missing piece.

    Contrary to popular belief, most adoptees are (1) healthy-not physically or mentally ill (2)not searching for their 'real' parents and (3)not 'super screwed up'.  Think about this: if doctors, specialists,  special ed teachers, etc had to make their living on adopted kids, they's starve.

    In addition to plenty of studies bearing this out, my dad, my husband and two of my four children were adopted...and each are wonderful people who have great success in one or more areas of their lives.  

    That being said, it's really hard for birth parents to (1)believe they can love an adopted child as 'their own' and (2)believe that the adopted child won't 'screw up' their whole family, present children included.  I think those are two things that people legitimatly worry about, and they are things that should be worked through in order to get the appropriate placement for their family.

    Also, adoption can be like birth in that you get what you get.  You might not get a perfect kid, but most people believe they 'make' perfect kids.  In other words, there is so much to think about and come to terms with.  Your husband may come around, but I don't think he's unusual. Many couples include one who would adopt and one who isn't interested.  And each couple I know who has adopted find that one person was originally more interested than the other, but the other thought about it and liked the idea (sometimes sooner, sometimes later).

    What worked for our family was (1) not doing an open adoption and (2)not disrupting the birth order.  

    BTW, dh was also from a family who had four kids/two bio/two adopted...nice family.  He was more than willing to recreate the situation in our home.

    by lam2b2g on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 06:36:12 AM PDT

    • I should add (0 / 0)

      that "population control" was part of it, but we were also very into the whole "triage" concept.

      I've always said that GOPers are bad at "triage" in that they worry more about a couple of cells dividing than already sick, whole humans who could benefit from the science revolving around those cells. And for me it's a net game.  I'm going to feed and clothe two more people, so I'd rather do that for someone already created.

      Just a personal choice, but I wanted to throw that out there...

      by lam2b2g on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:01:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • great perspective (0 / 0)

        Thanks for telling me about your experience with adoption.  I really think it's going to end up not being an option for us, but I'm still hopeful my husband will come around.

        Would you mind telling me more about your adoption story?  Like domestic or international, ages of older kids, ages of adopted kids, etc.  I have in mind the kind of adoption I would do, and it's international adoption of a non-white infant (we're white).  But it's all hypothetical anyway.

        I agree with you that all kids are a crapshoot, whether biological or adopted.  Part of the thing that's made me even more open to adoption is seeing our two kids.  The oldest is so clearly our child -- looks like us, similar temperament, etc.  The second kid, however, looks nothing like us and is so different in so many ways.  But they're both ours and fit in great with our family.  

        by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:44:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Treena (0 / 0)

          So sorry for the late reply...
          If you're still checking the thread (!) please email me at:
          lam 2b2g at yahoo dot com
          (no spaces)
          I'm always happy to share our story and to answer any questions!

          I have to run, but email me if you have time

          Again, sorry for the late reply and I hope you're still there:-)

          by lam2b2g on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:58:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • No way (0 / 0)

    I would never, ever limit my family because of environmental concerns.  I would do everything else, sure, but that, no way.  I guess I believe that all children are a gift from God or whatever one believes in or maybe its just instinct.

    Honestly, I think it's sick that parts of environmental movement are pushing this idea.

    How about we, as a people, as a movement, try everything else first before we start pushing people to limit their families?  We're still at the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended) as far as developing renewable energies, etc.

    Treena, have as many kids as you want, three, four, ten.  You and your husband are thoughtful, good people and will raise them to be good people.

    by NJmom on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 07:14:15 AM PDT

    • Ooo (0 / 0)

      Good answer, NJmom, a different version of mine, I'd say.

      How are you these days?

      by tarantula on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 07:19:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • I feel having a third negates the effort we make (0 / 0)

      I understand that we (as a people) could try other things instead of limiting population, but I think having more than two kids might make us environmentally irresponsible, despite all our efforts.  Obviously still better than people with big families who don't give a damn, though.

      by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:46:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Try not to think of it like that.. (0 / 0)

        instead, think of the possibility of three more people that can bring positive change in the world.  :-)

        "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!" ~Mike Meyers

        by 1plain1peanut on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:01:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • I hope that my kids will have a positive impact (0 / 0)

          But I also worry about taking this for granted.  I am very different values than my parents, so I need to accept that there's no guarantee my kids will be liberal environmentalists like me.  I wouldn't want to be disappointed in a kid who grew up differently than I expected, so I try not to have many expectations.

          by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:38:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    • I agree (0 / 0)

      I totally agree.  I'm against limiting families for environmental reasons.  I remember seeing Lenny Kravitz interviewed years ago and he was asked how he came up with the idea for his song, Let Love Rule.  He said (and I don't remember his exact words) that there was so much hate and fighting in the world... that we needed more love, and we needed to start a love revolution.  As corny as that may sound, I feel that if we can raise conscientious children who in turn become conscientious adults, then, the more the merrier.  Only good can come from this.

      "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!" ~Mike Meyers

      by 1plain1peanut on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 02:56:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • It sounds like (0 / 0)

    you are raising responsible, aware people. More kids in your family sounds like a good thing, either adopted or biological, so really, just go with your (and your husband's) heart here. That's my vote. Just have your kids and enjoy making a difference with them!

    Maybe as a family, you could get into global warming activism or something. That's what I'm starting to do.    I'm feeling like all the things that I do to reduce our carbon footprint as a single family is futile unless I try to virally spread the effort via StepItUp/Energize America/whatever Gore points to next/or whatever better ideas are on the horizon.

    I'm reading the Energize America executive summary and hungry for more these days.

    by tarantula on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 07:16:09 AM PDT

  • Go for it. (0 / 0)

    I find the attitude of population control advocates towards large families frustrating and shortsighted. Their approach is more three-person families, one child per couple. In my experience (and I write this as the mother of one child), that's probably the least environmentally friendly way to raise children. So much knowledge, and stuff, and resources are devoted to just one child that could be well spent on two or three or seven children.

    The point that children, especially American children, take resources, is valid. But I think the "greenest" approach is probably to have more childfree couples and more families with many children. I know several large, responsible, wonderful families, and they teach sharing and responsibility and frugality in a way that I really cannot with just one child. These children will all be assets to the world.

    by shenanigans on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 09:06:32 AM PDT

    • I can see this (0 / 0)

      As a disclaimer, I'm pg with #3 and to borrow Erika's line, anyone concerned about our environmental impact can suck it.

      Anyway, my husband is the youngest of six and his family is great about sharing resources.  Many items were handed down within his family but then when his siblings started having their own kids they were excellent about sharing resources and spreading stuff around as opposed to buying new stuff.  We used the family cradle with our children.  They tried to hand us down clothes but we had the 8&9th boys to go through some of those items so we ended up with plenty of new stuff especially for our first boy.

      My boys are sharing a room.  We live in a big enough house for our kids but don't feel the need to live somewhere each child can have a room.  If we end up with three boys, all three will share the room.  Even if it's a girl, she'll probably be in with her brothers until we need to her to have her own space.

      by music teacher on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 10:46:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • It's not just childhood, though (0 / 0)

        I guess my concern is not just what resources a kid consumes, but what resources that person will consume in their lifetime of possibly 100 years.  So there are things we can do as a young family to limit consumption, but that only gets us so far.  It's still creating a person who will be eating, driving, breathing, drinking, washing, etc. for a long period of time.

        And we're totally in favor of room sharing here too.  Our kids share even though we have a third bedroom.

        by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:49:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Well that was sort of my point (0 / 0)

          I'm thinking of my husband's large family, they probably all do a great job at leaving less of a carbon footprint than your average person.  His parents raised six environmentally responsible adults.

          by music teacher on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 06:32:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • I find it admirable (0 / 0)

    that you're aware of this and considering it before expanding your family.

    Think about it....some people are still doing nothing (or next to nothing!) to reduce their envir. footprint on this planet.  Meanwhile,  you  are putting up for consideration one of the most important decisions a family can make in terms of what this will do to the environment.  I find that admirable.

    Ultimately its your choice (obviously) but I disagree with the pp that finds the idea of smaller families being pushed by environmentalist as offensive.  I don't at all.  I think its common sense.

    We have one child and are not considering more.  But thats simply a choice we made that accidentally conforms to our 'green' beliefs.  If I felt differently about my family's size I would be conflicted about it too.

    good luck with your decision.  (btw, I think adoption is a wonderful option too)

    by goin nutz on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 10:39:01 AM PDT

  • It's okay! (0 / 0)

    I think limiting population growth is important, but you can help with that even if you have a third biological child.  Contribute to organizations that empower women, increase access to birth control, and help with education of women (a key component in decreasing family size).

    Adoption is wonderful, and an option worth pursuing.  But, if after learning more (and dispelling myths...) your husband still isn't interested then it's not the right choice for you.  And I say this as an adoptive parent!

    I think discussing limiting family size is fine, but demonizing people who make another choice isn't fine.  May you find the answer that's right for you!

    by Anu on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

    • I like this idea (0 / 0)

      I guess world overpopulation wouldn't be a big problem if all pregnancies were planned pregnancies, so perhaps supporting an organization like Planned Parenthood is as important as environment organizations.  If people across the world were given more opportunities to plan their children, then things would more likely be even.  I've heard something like 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, but I'm not sure if that's an American or worldwide statistic.

      So we can plan to have a third if we're helping others prevent unplanned pregnancies.  I feel OK with that.

      I'll still talk to my husband more about adoption, but I don't think he'll come around.

      by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 01:52:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I wish I could find links for this... (0 / 0)

        I don't have any, but I remember reading about how increasing maternal education decreases family size.  And certainly, good access to family planning is essential.  We certainly have plenty that we can do to ensure that pregnancies are planned (or sort of planned...) rather than inevitable or downright unwanted.  Efforts can be made in the US but also in other parts of the world - especially developing nations where women may have far more children than they would like to be having.

        Re:adoption, it's hard to say without knowing your own situation, but adoption isn't something you should do if one parent is ambivalent.  Do you know anyone who has adopted?  Any adoption information nights at adoption agencies nearby?  Those might be ways to get some information.

        We adopted our daughter domestically through an African American Infant program and couldn't be happier.  We also have one biological daughter, one biological son on the way and will adopt our 4th.  For us it worked out great, but it's not the choice for everyone.  I will say that there are a lot of myths and stereotypes regarding adoption that just plain aren't true.  For further reading you might try Adoptive Families' website.  It has a wealth of information and is very easy reading.

        by Anu on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:06:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • thanks! (0 / 0)

          I just shared this diary and comments with my husband, and I'm really thinking the family planning angle is the way we're going to be able to justify it.  If we can give money to and support family planning organizations, and hopefully help prevent a couple unwanted pregnancies, we'd feel much better having a larger family ourselves.

          We do know some families who have adopted, but they are families who couldn't have biological children.  Actually, there are four instances of adoption in my extended family:

          1. international adoption in the 1950s, great result
          1. international adoption in the 1970s, bad result (crack addict)
          1. international adoption in the 1970s, great result
          1. domestic adoption in the 1980s, baby reclaimed by birth parent after placement and family devasted

          So we'll continue to think and talk about the adoption option, and if he's at all more open to it in a month, we'll investigate further.

          by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:34:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • study after study (0 / 0)

            has shown that addiction etc has nothing to do with adoption. Somebody told me once that all adoptees became CRIMINALS just like their birth parents -- based this "opinion" on her knowledge of ONE person.

            by brave on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 05:53:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • yeah, it's a gamble any way you have a kid (0 / 0)

              I definitely don't have a negative attitude about adoption because of the situation in my family.  That's clearly the anomaly and doesn't turn me off to adoption at all.

              I do think, in that case, that a biological child of the family might not have had the same issue.  It's a complicated story, but of the adoptions I mentioned in my family, #2, #3, and #4 were all in the same family, and having the baby (#4) taken back supposedly had a really traumatic effect on #2 who didn't feel secure in his own family after that.  Also, it was a transracial adoption, which I think can be fine, but I don't think the family was fully prepared for the possible issues that would arise, and the kid ended up trying to define his identity outside the family.  

              It's a long story, and the adopted kid is my age, so my perception of it is mostly based on the interpretation of others in my family, who likely have the story all wrong anyway.

              But clearly, lots of families struggle with similar issues with their biological children, and lots of adopted kids are totally fine.  So you never know what you're going to get.

              by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 06:13:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • i hope (0 / 0)

                this doesn't come across as harsh but I feel for these kids you mention and here's why:

                all these years later, and your (and probably others in your family) frame of reference is that this child is the "adopted kid." It's probably something that his/her family communicated even non-verbally to her/him and everyone else....probably without knowing it. I'm not knocking you but just saying it's a flag to me...

                Why does this stand out to me? I never refer to my son as my adopted son. Just my son. In fact, I don't tell people right away since it has no relevance to most conversations. I didn't even tell his teacher and my son and I aren't the same race!

                while adoption is one valid way of adding to your family, it's not noble (sorry :-) Any social worker who is worth her/his salt during the home study will ask you both questions designed to probe your reasons and motivations for adopting and will bring this up. There's no shame in wanting only bio children.

                only the best wishes for your family decision!

                by brave on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:37:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • yes, this is definitely true (0 / 0)

                  I've scolded my mother for referring to (and maybe even introducing) him as her cousin's "adopted son."

                  I will say that the same is not true for the other adopted members of the family, to the point we often forget that they're not genetically related to us when discussing inherited traits, etc.  But the fact that the other kid is adopted is definitely considered part of the reason he's been a problem, and I'm not saying this is necessarily accurate.

                  My extended family is also sort of racist, so I'm sure this plays into their analysis of the situation as well.  It's something I'd have to consider if we end up considering adopting transracially, but hopefully something we can try to shield the kid from somehow.

                  by Treena on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:42:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  • if she says that about (0 / 0)

                    her cousin's son, you can pretty much be assured she will do the same for your child, if you decide to adopt. whether or not the child is the same race. I recommend some reading for some real life insight from people who know more than me certainly -- Like Inside Transracial Adoption by Gail Steinberg and Beth Hall and Beyond Good Intentions by Cheri Register (I haven't read this one but I read her earlier book on international adoption)

                    by brave on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 05:44:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  • so many other ways to handle this (0 / 0)

    look at it this way: there are efficiency measures out there that will be drastically reducing our consumption levels in the coming years. we've barely scratched the surface. a lot of it takes municipal and federal cooperation, but i firmly believe that that too will come, as we are seriously beginning to reach our limits. with awareness, we'll manage.

    your family of three kids can have a much more limited impact that a family with fewer, and you can teach them to tread lightly upon the earth, and they will. more love is never a bad thing, and the beauty you will bring to the earth will far outweigh the third's consumption.

    that sounds a little 'hippie'-ish itself, but i say it as a serious environmentalist.

    if you wobba cypress trees then I will wobba you

    by thais on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 12:11:28 PM PDT

    • what if we're lying to ourselves? (0 / 0)

      somehow, the first time I posted this comment, it disappeared.

      I find this line of argument so appealing.  But I come up short and wonder if we're lying to ourselves.  I want to have a second child, and possibly even a third.  So is this appealing to me because its easy and gives me what I want, or because it's true?

      Human beings are SO GOOD at lying to themselves, and avoiding the reality staring them right in the face.  All of my coworkers and I work in a "sick" building, and we know it, but we ignore it.  Its too hard to find a new job or get the building fixed.  I used to park right on top of a sealed off toxic waste dump, but I ignored it until I had my miscarriage.  Its just easier to say to yourself "I'll fix it tomorrow."  Its why Scarlett O'Hara makes sense to people.

      by tessajp on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:15:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • little of both (0 / 0)

        we do our share of justifying what we want to ourselves, yes. but for any dilemma there are a number of different solutions, and i don't really think that denying ourselves that which makes us most passionate for change (in this case, kids) is the only solution. Let's say we decide for kid #3, and we feel a little guilty about that, and so we green ourselves more thoroughly than we would have otherwise. But if we only had 2, maybe we consume more or are less careful because we figure 'well, i paid my dues by not having that child i wanted'.

        in a perfect world we do all things, but come on. and this argument makes more sense to me than 'it was meant to be because it just felt that way' (although i don't discount that).

        hope that makes sense-- it's getting late

        if you wobba cypress trees then I will wobba you

        by thais on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 05:38:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • i'm glad i'm not the only one! (0 / 0)

    I'm glad I"m not the only one thinking about this.  I only have one child but am contemplating whether or not I should have a second one for precisely the same reasons.

    The days where I feel particularly environmentalist, I tell myself that a second child will be many more diapers into landfill; that I can adopt; or that I'm letting the people who decide to have 2nd, 3rd, or 4th children have my child so that it all evens out. :)  Other days, I think having a sibling for my DD would be really nice.

    I'd never thought about the fact that having 2 might be actually better because you share resources. One toy used by 2 kids, one crib used by two kids,etc  Though one could argue that you can always donate your stuff to other families.

    Also, having more kids means more people vying for the same resources.  It doesn't even have to be about the environment.  More people vying to get into college, for jobs, etc.

    by smurfett on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:39:48 PM PDT

    • Resources (0 / 0)

      I've actually heard another argument for resources that's in favor of larger families. It's that we have a population that is aging and a low birth rate in the US, so financially we needed lots of young people to support the aging population (which will one day be us).  There was an article about this theory in Brain, Child a year or so ago.

      I tried to justify having a third with this reason, but it's still not taking the environmental impact into account, so it seems pretty short-sighted.

      by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:28:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • this argument I have a problem with (0 / 0)

        it is true that in comparison to the "boomer" generation, Gen X/GenY aren't there in terms of replacement. Over the next, say, 30 years, we are going to have to cope with the implications of supporting the aging population. But once we digest that bottleneck, the replacement rate is pretty much one-for-one, which is more sustainable.

        by Rachel on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:48:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • hahah yes (0 / 0)

        Every time there's a fight between the no-children people and the people who have children, that's what I think of.  The "you shouldn't have children" people really can't complain, their social security and benefits will be earned by these children down the line!

        by smurfett on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 12:55:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • I spent a long time contemplating #2 as well (0 / 0)

      One book I read that I really liked was "Maybe One" by Bill McKibben.  He lays out a lot of really good arguments (mostly environmental) for why it would make sense if more people decided to have only one child.  He also presents research that refutes the prevailing myth that only children are somehow "messed up".  He gives people who are considering having only one PERMISSION to stop at one.  At the same time, he doesn't finger-wag at those who choose to have large families.

      I read it twice after #1 was born.  And then we decided to have a second child.  But I felt like we had thought it through thoroughly and were doing it for the right reasons.  While a lot of what we buy and how we act is influenced with a desire to reduce our ecological footprint, that argument wasn't enough to sway us from two children to one.  It did play heavily into our decision to stop at two, however, but also with a long list of other reasons.  It's a very personal thing!  

      by Ecomama on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 05:26:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • you remind me of a woman (0 / 0)

    w/ a large family i read about once- her family was very large by today's standards- if memory serves, they had eight kids.

    she explained their decision to have a larger than average family as being guided by the sense that everyone wasn't there yet.  then after their last child was born she just knew everyone was there.

    i'm paraphrasing what she said, and i hope it came out right.

    i really hope you have that third child.  and then if everybody's not there yet, a fourth. and if everyone's still not there yet....

    by thankgodforairamerica on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 04:46:11 PM PDT

    • I do plan to have a third (0 / 0)

      I'm hoping my husband will become open to adoption, but if not, we'll most likely create another person.  I'm just hoping to find a way to feel better about it.

      And there's a good chance we'll have a fourth as well, but, like the woman you mentioned, want to have #3 first and see what makes sense at that point.

      by Treena on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 05:31:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Go with you heart (0 / 0)

    Adoption ought to be a decision of the heart not the head -- just like a biological child. Population control is a noble ideal -- but it's more of a problem in places where there are many many children who need families. Do it if it's right for your family -- either by birth or adoption.

    by brave on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 05:50:58 PM PDT

  • But you don't need to justify it! (0 / 0)

    I keep seeing the word "justify", but this seems like a gut  - not to mention heart - decision, to have more kids or not. Bio or not. You only get one life and the kid decision is fundamental.

    by RachelD on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 07:46:44 PM PDT

Permalink | 42 comments