If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
The more than one kid thread is getting me thinking about possible spacing
options. I'm interested in your personal experiences, but I have some extra data: I'm going to be 40 next year. Kay was born this February. Should I try to have any siblings for Kay fairly quickly because I'm going to continue being ever-more Advanced Maternal Age? I had anemia, hip problems and calcium problems during pregnancy, so I'm not sure the six month mark will be adequate for "recouperation" before we start trying again. I'd really prefer to have more than one kid now that we have her. I'm not crazy about her being an only child. I cannot help but think, though, that we started out with the best! (And this ensures that in future years, her siblings will Google this article. I just know it.:^)) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
I had 2 years and 2 months between my 1st and 2nd babies and again between my 2nd and 3rd babies. I then had a gap of 4 years exactly with number 3 and number 4. I preferred the small age gap - I find they have more in common when they get older and play together really well. I find 3 and 4 (both girls) are a little too different in their age range to do much together yet. I've observed the same -- just based on most of the siblings I've known and from talking to other parents, closer gaps (2ish years) tend to produce closer playmates, especially in the early years. But there are exceptions everywhere and no kind of gap is a guarantee that you won't have issues either related to being too close or too far apart. IIRC, Ericka's posted the cite for a study saying that the optimal time for conceiving, from a straight statistical health standpoint, is between 18 months and 23 months. But being that you're up against the "over 40" issues, I'm thinking that's not as big a deal as the possible fertility stuff you may start running up against. IMHO I don't think you should wait unnecessarily, as long as you feel up to conceiving again after six months, paying special attention to calcium supplementation and so forth. Good luck! Mary S. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
T Flynn wrote:
The more than one kid thread is getting me thinking about possible spacing options. I'm interested in your personal experiences Mine are 24 months apart. That seems to be fine. They play and fight well together ;-) I did promise myself I'd never ttc again until all current children were weaned and sleeping at night. My first was still nursing and waking up multiple times a night when we conceived the second. No interest in doing that again, lol. He had weaned when I was 5 months pregnant but was no where close to sleeping through the night yet when his brother was born. -- Nikki |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
I had 2 years and 2 months between my 1st and 2nd babies and again between
my 2nd and 3rd babies. I then had a gap of 4 years exactly with number 3 and number 4. I preferred the small age gap - I find they have more in common when they get older and play together really well. I find 3 and 4 (both girls) are a little too different in their age range to do much together yet. I know they recommend waiting at least a year for your body to recover from birth before having another but plenty of people I know have a smaller gap than that! Do what you feel is right for you. Eat well, stay healthy and active and take your supplements and if you feel ready for another go for it! You will find the hard work at the beginning is more than made up for when the children get older! If your hip probl;ems were related to symphisis pubis dysfunction (sp?) then they are likely to return and are often worse in subsequent pregnancies. I have had spd with the last 3 pregnancies - I am now approx 16 weeeks with # 5 and have had the spd pain since about 12 weeks. To me its worth the pain Bws Jane The more than one kid thread is getting me thinking about possible spacing options. I'm interested in your personal experiences, but I have some extra data: |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
The more than one kid thread is getting me thinking about possible spacing
options. I'm interested in your personal experiences, but I have some extra data: I'm going to be 40 next year. Kay was born this February. Should I try to have any siblings for Kay fairly quickly because I'm going to continue being ever-more Advanced Maternal Age? I had anemia, hip problems and calcium problems during pregnancy, so I'm not sure the six month mark will be adequate for "recouperation" before we start trying again. I'd really prefer to have more than one kid now that we have her. I'm not crazy about her being an only child. I cannot help but think, though, that we started out with the best! (And this ensures that in future years, her siblings will Google this article. I just know it.:^)) My sister felt old at 37 having her first so she had her second almost exactly 2 yrs later, at 39. She had #2 so #1 wouldn't be alone. It took her over 2 yrs to get pregnant with #1 so she was worried about that. Got pregnant on her first try with #2. If it were me, I'd have them close in age if there'll only be 2 of them. Sophie mom of 4 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Sophie wrote:
If it were me, I'd have them close in age if there'll only be 2 of them. I just think about my dad and his brothers -- Grandma had three boys in just over four years -- and the silly arguments and games they played. By the mid 1960s, they lived thousands of miles apart, and rarely got together after that. But then, hey, that's them. OTOH, their mom was the youngest of like 10 born over about 18 years. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
T Flynn wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Sophie wrote: If it were me, I'd have them close in age if there'll only be 2 of them. I just think about my dad and his brothers -- Grandma had three boys in just over four years -- and the silly arguments and games they played. By the mid 1960s, they lived thousands of miles apart, and rarely got together after that. But then, hey, that's them. OTOH, their mom was the youngest of like 10 born over about 18 years. I don't think there's any spacing that even comes close to guaranteeing your kids will get along. Every spacing has plusses and minuses in that department. Have kids close together and some will play well together because they're at similar stages developmentally. Others will fight like cats and dogs because they're in constant competition. Have them far apart and sometimes they'll develop a really intense bond that's almost a little parental. On the other hand, sometimes they'll have no interest in each other. It's the same with spacings in the middle. You just don't know. It depends on the temperaments of the kids, the family dynamics, and even (in my opinion) the gender mix. I think about the only thing that you can figure is that if you have kids within a few years of each other (and stop at two), you will likely spend most of your family life in a situation where your kids won't be a very different developmental stages. That makes it a bit easier to find suitable family activities. On the other hand, you could get kids who have very different temperaments and interests, in which case being at about the same developmental stage won't do you a bit of good ;-) I think you just have to have however many kids you really want at whatever time you really want to do it. Feeling ready and being enthusiastic about parenting another child beats just about any other criteria. Best wishes, Ericka |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
I have a three-year age gap and an 18-month age-gap. I have to say that I
like the three-year age gap the best. The 18 month age gap girls don't get along at all and fight *all* the time. The three year girls are much better in tune with each other and play very well together. But, you never know what you are going to get, you just have to deal with what you've got. I liked the 3-yr gap because the oldest was old enough to understand what was going on, she could entertain herself for periods of time when I was busy with the baby and old enough to help me out a lot. Good luck with whatever you decide. Do remember though that once they are old enough to be in school that things get really busy and hectic and expensive. So if you like kids to be pretty much in the same stage at all times and needing the same things, then the younger ages closer together is best, but if you need time to go through each stage and do things at different times, then a larger age gap might be best. -- Sue (mom to three girls) "T Flynn" wrote in message ... The more than one kid thread is getting me thinking about possible spacing options. I'm interested in your personal experiences, but I have some extra data: I'm going to be 40 next year. Kay was born this February. Should I try to have any siblings for Kay fairly quickly because I'm going to continue being ever-more Advanced Maternal Age? I had anemia, hip problems and calcium problems during pregnancy, so I'm not sure the six month mark will be adequate for "recouperation" before we start trying again. I'd really prefer to have more than one kid now that we have her. I'm not crazy about her being an only child. I cannot help but think, though, that we started out with the best! (And this ensures that in future years, her siblings will Google this article. I just know it.:^)) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
"Sue" wrote in message
... I have a three-year age gap and an 18-month age-gap. I have to say that I like the three-year age gap the best. I completely agree with you here. I have two boys with the 3year gap (3y,3mo). When DS2 was born, DS1 started potty training in preparation for pre-kindergarten. So there was a time frame of a few months where I was up to my eyeballs in diapers and training pants tho but it was not too bad. It was only bad when they both had to be changed and were hollering at the same time. However like Sue said, you never know what you will get. I had no idea DS1 would be so active! Maybe that's why it took 3 years to have DS2 for us. But DS1 understood more at his age and is very helpful and loving to his little brother. Also it is nice to know DS2 doesn't see DS1 as competition but really as a protector/buddy closer to his size. However, the two have different temperaments. DS1 is extroverted and DS2 is introverted so there are days when it seems the two of them have nothing to do with each other (this frustrates DS1 more than it does DS2). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
spacing
I'm going to be 40 next year. Kay was born this February. Should I try
to have any siblings for Kay fairly quickly because I'm going to continue being ever-more Advanced Maternal Age? I had anemia, hip problems and calcium problems during pregnancy, so I'm not sure the six month mark will be adequate for "recouperation" before we start trying again. I'd really prefer to have more than one kid now that we have her. I'm not crazy about her being an only child. I cannot help but think, though, that we started out with the best! (And this ensures that in future years, her siblings will Google this article. I just know it.:^)) I had my first in March at 40. I have the same concern as you. I have not started my period yet, and I have not resumed "intimacy", so I'm not at the stage of actually trying. I will wait and see how it goes. ~Carol Ann www.lowcarblosers.com ~ Home of the FREE Monthly Weightloss Challenge http://tinyurl.com/33uk7 ---Recent Pictures of Morgan born 3.24.04 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I got a nice surprise tonight | Jennifer and Robert Howe | Pregnancy | 22 | May 16th 04 01:36 AM |