No. I would just do lots more with my current kids and fully fund a lot of activities for other family members like grad school for my nieces and nephews, travel for them, etc.
Post by mainelyfoolish on Aug 27, 2015 18:57:07 GMT -5
I just asked DH the question, "Would having $20 million change the number of kids we have?" He answered, "It might, but it wouldn't increase the number."
Post by shamrockshake on Aug 27, 2015 19:17:26 GMT -5
I don't think so but we already have 4. Maybe 1 more, but I'm not really sure, the last two pregnancies were hard on me, I've had 3 c/s and I just finally started being happy about my body again.
eta- I just asked DH and get was VERY quick with the "no! Four is plenty even with allll the money in the world"
Maybe if I had the 20 million dollars when I was 27. We probably would have started having kids earlier as opposed to waiting a few years. I had my second at 33 and by the time I felt having a third was "possible" (as in within my mental and emotional capacity) I was 35 and frankly even if I had 20 million I would not willingly get pregnant right now. I know people have babies well into their 40's, but it's not for me!
Not sure. It's not money so much as I don't know if I have the patience to divide my attention between more than two. But ask me when I'm not in a newborn fog.
Post by bugandbibs on Aug 27, 2015 19:45:30 GMT -5
Without hesitation we would have/adopt 1-2 more for a total of 4-5 children. We have 1 adopted and 2 biological now and the only reason we aren't having more is money.
share.memebox.com/x/uKhKaZmemebox referal code for 20% off! DD1 "J" born 3/2003 DD2 "G" born 4/2011 DS is here! "H" born 2/2014 m/c#3 1-13-13 @ 9 weeks m/c#2 11-11-12 @ 5w2d I am an extended breastfeeding, cloth diapering, baby wearing, pro marriage equality, birth control lovin', Catholic mama.
Post by yellowbrkrd on Aug 27, 2015 19:47:06 GMT -5
Nope. I hate being pregnant and if I had that kind of money I would want to spend all my time traveling, which could be more difficult with more children.
Idk. I guess if we could afford all the help we possibly needed, then maybe? I loved growing up with lots of cousins, and that was only possible because each of my parents had lots of siblings. OTOH, I don't really feel a pull to have more than 2-3 kids.
Post by estrellita on Aug 27, 2015 20:40:45 GMT -5
I do want 2, maybe 3, but I think the spacing would be closer if we had more money. Thinking of paying for 2 in daycare gives me a heart attack! We can barely afford one in daycare right now! But hey, if we had that much money, we could afford to stay at home or only work part time doing something fun!
Yes, I'd love to have 4 kids, but we can't afford it and probably don't have time to have that many since I'm already 32 and it took 3.5 years plus IVF to have C.
This kind of makes me sad. I don't mean to offend, but there are SO many posters here saying they would adopt or foster if they had $20mil. I'm sad so many people only consider that if they have significant money. And that it appears most want to foster/adopt only after they have biological.
I think it's more that people would consider having more children, but don't want to be pregnant again. Fostering/adopting is a means to that end. It's not that lack of money is keeping people from fostering/adopting in the first place.
This kind of makes me sad. I don't mean to offend, but there are SO many posters here saying they would adopt or foster if they had $20mil. I'm sad so many people only consider that if they have significant money. And that it appears most want to foster/adopt only after they have biological.
I think it's more that people would consider having more children, but don't want to be pregnant again. Fostering/adopting is a means to that end. It's not that lack of money is keeping people from fostering/adopting in the first place.
I'm kind of here. I want a big family and although I love my 2 biological children, I don't like being pregnant. We may end up fostering and possibly adopting more kids once our biological kids are a bit older (and we don't need $20 million to do that). And just because I chose to have biological kids first doesn't mean I'd love adopted kids any less.
This kind of makes me sad. I don't mean to offend, but there are SO many posters here saying they would adopt or foster if they had $20mil. I'm sad so many people only consider that if they have significant money. And that it appears most want to foster/adopt only after they have biological.
To be fair almost everyone answering this already has kids, most of whom are biological, so foster/adopting first ship has already sailed.
Post by rupertpenny on Aug 28, 2015 7:32:01 GMT -5
No.
I don't have anywhere near 20 million dollars, but I do have a live in nanny and it's not a magic bullet. It is great and I'm very lucky, but it doesn't alleviate the emotional burdens of parenting at all. If anything it just makes me feel depressed and guilty when she wakes up in the MOTN calling for her nanny instead of for me.
yes I think so. I'm done at two because it's too hard but having a whole bunch of paid help, and not having to worry about the cost of daycare, and activities as they age, would be a game changer.
I'd probably have 3, maybe 4. I don't mind pregnancy that much so I'd be fine with carrying two more biological children I think, especially with several prenatal deep tissue massages a week I'd suddenly be able to afford