If you had $20 million

[dulcemariamar]

I would rather take the money and enjoy my ideal # of kids (1-2) but if I had to have 1 or 2 more to get the money then I would do it. I don't mind the actual number of kids if I can buy help.

[laurenh]

Yes, I think it would push me to want 4. Financial reasons were the only thing stopping us at two and now that 2&3 came at once, I feel like I could still handle another pregnancy.

[zarapipe]

Yes. I would have 3.

I would also adopt a housecleaner forever!

[SJ]

It wouldn't change the number I want (3-4), but it would make it much more likely that we actually go for 4.

[marie3246]

Yes then I could pay someone to be pregnant for me or adopt and have help get up with the newborn, and do all the crappy stuff. But I guess DH wouldn't be working like crazy if we had that money so...

If we didn't have such hectic lives right now (DH works all the time, we travel a lot and are renovating and planning on moving in less than a year) I would have a 2nd now, but I cannot imagine having 2 pretty much on my own.

[heygrey]

Yup. I'd have #2 soon and could easily be convinced to have 3-4.

[Deleted]

I really don't know. Money was only one factor in us wanting 3.

Maybe if I could have kids several years from now. My kids are so damn close in age it's hard. But also, we are liking that we are done with kids and moving on with our lives and family. I am loving that we are traveling again and planning trips. I couldn't do that pregnant and with a newborn.

I also think H is DONE at 3. But this is primarily influenced by having twins only 21 mos after having J. A bigger age gap would have made a huge difference!

Ultimately, I think no. We would still only have 3.

[juliette21]

Not for me, because there is no amount of money that would make me want to be pregnant again or deal with the absolute exhaustion of sleep deprivation with a newborn.

My husband, on the other hand, says he would want a 3rd if we won the lottery. 

[Deleted]

Absolutely. With 20 million I could have a live in nanny and quit my job. Lady who lunches and has kids, check! I would also 100% be hiring a night nanny because sleep deprivation is the worst. I don't want to go through pregnancy or breastfeeding again either. Basically I just want to adopt 2 more toddlers, lol.

[whereintheworld]

Absolutely. I'd probably have 2 more (for a total of 5).

[carfar]

We'd def have one more, which we are on the fence about, but I still wouldn't want more than that.

[Deleted]

Yes. We'd have one more for sure for a total of four.

[docholly]

Yes. We are tentative on a third right now, but if I had 20 million, I would jump right into it, and likely have a fourth.  

[CloudBee]

Nope. It's not a money based decision for us.

I may be at peace with just 1, but if DH told me he wanted a 2nd I would say yes in a heartbeat.

Money wouldn't change this aspect of our relationship or family dynamic.

[ilikedonuts]

Yep! I'd probably want 3 or 4. $$$ is the deciding factor for number 3 right now.

[robyn]

Absolutely. Right now we are most like OAD. If we had $20 million we would want 3-4. We both wouldn't have to work full time so we would have more time to juggle the kids and their activities, school commitments, etc. We would also have funds for things we would like to pay for or help pay for like used cars, college, weddings, to help with first down payments, braces, etc.

[Velar Fricative]

No, because it's not money that makes us not want to have more than two kids.

[jeaniebueller]

Aug 27, 2015 14:50:17 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

Aug 27, 2015 14:34:00 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Nope. Actually, it would solidify that we are done.

?

Do you mean "it would make it even more clear that money is not the reason we stopped"?

heh. I probably worded that oddly ( I am tired). We are done no matter what. Even if we had 20 million dollars, we would be done and have a greater incentive to be done since I would want to travel and have more experiences, which is easier without more babies (even with paid help).

[timorousbeastie]

Nope. I have absolutely no interest in having more than one, regardless of money.

[linz]

No I would still have 3.

[dcrunnergirl52]

Yup, we'd probably go for 5 kids or at least more aggressively try for #4.

[glitzy07]

Nope. We were always going to have two kids together (plus SS, who is with us half time). I'm not cut out for more than that!

[nessness]

Yep. We'd both retire, move closer to family, and have 3 or 4 kids. And hire a housekeeper and part time nanny.

Well, that would be my dream anyway. I'm not sure if DH would agree.

[genet313]

Yes.  It would give us enough $$ to do multiple rounds of IVF or, even better, pay for a gestational carrier.  

[bazinga]

Nope. Money is a factor, but I don't want more than two.

[t]

If it meant I could afford a surrogate and live-in help, housekeeping, and college/weddings...then maybe. I really have no interest in being pregnant again. I'm also not really interested in having a newborn again, but if I had live-in help, I'd be more inclined to go for 1-2 more kids.

DH would have his dream of retiring early and we'd buy a shore house.

And I would go to fancy brunches every weekend. lol

[mrshandy]

Yep, I would have like 4 probably.

[sweetpea508]

Hell to the no. I hate being pregnant. But I could def spend $20 mil on the kid I have and we would have a totally awesome life

[winecheery]

I would not birth any more, no. Two is all I am willing to put my body and emotions through w/r/t pregnancy and the aftermath.

BUT. With that money we could easily afford a big enough house to adopt or foster a third. It would be an older child for sure; two babies is perfect for me. But the money could allow me to do some good for another child who needs a home.

ETA:  We live in a very HCOL area, but this would be extra cash, so it would help boost our already (fortunately) comfortable income, I think.  For at least a bigger home, or extra savings money, etc.  

[Deleted]

you all know the answer to this question.