Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 11:23 AM
> Subject: RE: Brin-L population explosion, cont'd
>
> >
> > I always suggest stopping at two. The second one makes for MUCH more work
> > than just one. As my brother-in-law said, "One child is a hobby, two is a
> > career!"
> >
> That is absolutely true, but after 2 each additional child is actually less
> of a load.
> I am the oldest of 7 in a family where the average is 4 - 5 children (I have
> 80 or so cousins via my 13 aunts and uncles and that's just my moms side of
> the family).
>
> After the second child, the older children do quite a bit to help with the
> younger children. And I can't tell you how wonderful it is to have so many
> relatives while you are growing up.
I'm guessing that that actually depends on spacing, really.
Frex, it sure isn't going to be helpful if it turns out that I'm carrying
twins right now. :) (And if that turns out to be the case, I am going to
pray fervently that my parents-in-law decide that maybe they want to live
in Texas again, preferably closer to the son with children than the son
without.)
But it *is* nice having relatives.
Of all Sammy's grandparents' families, the only one that isn't scattered
to the four winds is Dan's mother. A lot of us get together to celebrate
Thanksgiving every year.
Her parents had 5 children. They gave her 12 grandchildren. There are 20
great-grandchildren, if I'm counting right. There were 40 relatives at
Thanksgiving last year, which is a nice number for Thanksgiving, IMO.
(There were 3 other people not related to any of us, friends of the
hosting family, and they were fun to have around as well.)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
