Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Three's Company

I've been thinking a lot lately about the number three. What a great, amazing, perfect number it is. It seems logical that a person, such as myself, should have three children. I am having a hard time convincing Blaine though.

*There are three seats in the back of a car
*Three bedrooms in this house
*Three Amigos
*Three Musketeers
* Three Doors Down (band)
* Three wise men
*Three members of the first presidency (eh? eh?)

All good things come in threes. I just need to convince Blaine because he still thinks that all good things come in fours or fives.

See because three kids sounds like too few, until you consider that I could be done bearing children when I just barely turn 27, then I could kick them all out of the house by the time I turn 45, which leaves plenty of years for trotting the globe. And the three of them ought to be able to pool enough money together to stick Blaine and I in a real nice place when we are old.

Ah yes, three. Glorious three.


Sarah said...

Nice! Thanks for pointing out the good of 3. I think Joey will appreciate that. He was fine with the 2, but not me. Who knows, maybe it'll just be 3 for us. Good luck, with the sickness too. That's a total bummer!

TheMoncurs said...

Aaron is trying to convince me the awesomeness of one. I think we'll probably end up settling at 2. When we first got married we were both happy with the idea of 3, but kids are kind of hard work. So..two. With a good gap in between.

Bart said...

I know a song that goes, "Three is the loneliest number there could ever be . . ." Or something like that.

Not really. I'm one of three original kids in my family. There were added plenty of steps and halves, but 3 was the original number, and it wasn't bad. Certainly better than 2 or 1.

I prefour (an easy way to say prefer four). I also prefive. "One at a time" is going to be our motto, until we blow it away with twins or somethin'.

Gretchen said...

I don't know what you're talking about, three is not small! I think I've got M convinced. When you grew up with two, three is an impressive step up. It promotes a couple from simply replacing themselves to actually "multiplyling"! Check that one off, no need to outdo yourselves... ;)

Marcie said...

Fiddle, I was number 3 for my mother... and she wasn't too excited about me either... LOL so me and your baby have a lot in common...

but I turned out alright (at least I think I did) haha She tells me now that I am her sanity. Scarry huh?

Corbett Family said...

Jim is convinced that three is all we need. I like three. They all play well together and only one parent has to do zone defense while the other can still do one-on-one (whereas with 4 plus there isn't much one-on-one). But I still keep thinking there is one more. . . We'll see since we are both well into our thirties and won't have kids out of the house until after we are in our fifties.

Aimee said...

I really don't think you should be making decisions on how many kids to have, under the current circumstances.

Just remember that you may be sad to "kick" kids out of the house in 18 years. Also, remember that it is okay to wait 4+ years to have baby 4, if you decide. I am convinced that you will know when to end your family and that you don't need to worry about that right now! (Worry about the D-land stroller thing instead!)

BTW, congratulations! I feel for you, but someday you won't know how you ever lived without him/her.