Three or Four

Most of the time there isn’t much difference between three and four:

I ate three or four cookies.
We have to leave in three or four minutes.
I’ve been there three or four times.
I need to lose three or four pounds.

Was it three or was it four? It doesn’t really matter; they are virtually the same.

Other times, though, there is a big difference between three and four.

Especially when it comes to how many children one is going to have.

When it comes to other people’s families, three or four children might seem almost the same ("they have three or four kids"), but when you have three children, and you are almost at that unmentionable age after which you don’t usually want to think about having another one, well, there is a difference, and you just have to decide.

When I was pregnant with Alaina I VOWED that I would never have another baby. The day I brought her home from the hospital, though, I was already thinking I would like to have one more. Jason, of course, thought I was INSANE, but I have talked to other moms who seem to understand.



Anyway, in the almost 19 months since then, I have probably debated this issue in my mind at least a hundred times . . . per day. I just don’t know if we should stick with three or have a number four.

Of course, I do realize I could decide on four and end up with just three, or decide on three and end up with four. In either case, I could end up with FIVE if you take twins into account (I prefer not to, but I thought I’d better throw that in there, since I am trying to be thorough!).

Still, it is wise to go through the pros and cons.

So, here it goes:

THREE is a nice round number. A lot of things come in threes—diamonds in my wedding ring, packs of Easter cream eggs, seatbelts in the back of many cars, leaves on most clovers.

I already have three, so this is also the path of least resistance: no more pregnancies with all their nausea, discomfort, gestational diabetes, constant worry, or money spent on maternity clothes; no attempts to rearrange all our rooms and stuff; no more adjustments to new members of the family or trying to divide my time among more little people; no need to replace all the baby items I have already given away/sold in an attempt to guarantee that I wouldn’t have another baby (seriously!).

This would--without a doubt--be the most sensible route to take.

FOUR, though, is a nice even number. I grew up in a family of four kids, so it’s sad to think of what life would have been like if my parents had stopped at three. I would get to have another little baby and another child to get to know and love. This would be the more exciting choice because it would bring change and then a lifetime of possibilities as the new baby grows.



It may sound like I am partial to four--maybe YOU are even considering having another baby just reading this! However, I must add that the mere thought of it makes me tired beyond description.

Four has a few cons: I have been pregnant and/or nursing for almost five years now (without even ONE day off!) and wonder if it would be wise to add yet another 2-3 years (I know I have no-one but myself to blame for this, but even I have to wonder sometimes if enough is enough . . .).



I also haven’t slept more than 3 hours at a time in the past year (and many nights total about 3 hours of sleep). If a person with three children is too tired to get out of bed most mornings, should this person consider having four? Probably not.

And then there is my age, to which I have already alluded (but will never actually say, you might have noticed). Am I already too old to have another one? Could I recover from another pregnancy?



So many questions, so few answers. Four is definitely the unknown.

So, three or four? What is my final answer?

I guess it’s three or four, or five if you account for twins.

But I have to admit, I am leaning towards three.

With these three, I'm sure I will be busy enough, don't you think?