A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

spacing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 29th 04, 05:26 PM
T Flynn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 07:10 PM
Mary S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 07:32 PM
Nikki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 07:49 PM
Jane Thorpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 07:57 PM
Sophie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 08:01 PM
T Flynn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 29th 04, 08:36 PM
Ericka Kammerer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 30th 04, 01:57 AM
Sue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 30th 04, 03:19 AM
RLK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 30th 04, 05:23 AM
Carol Ann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.