spacing

I failed to mention for the OP -- You can improve your blood and bones by
eating well, getting your supplements and keeping fit from the outset, prior
to getting pregnant and during.

fwiw, I had first at age 35, second at 38. Both children had similar
birthweight and apgars. However I was definitely out of shape for my second
preg. I had gained 30lbs prior to the second preg so for me it's not so much
the advanced age issue, but a health and fitness issue that caused my
difficulties. The physical changes took me by surprise, as I had been
without morning sickness and full of energy during the first pregnancy. Just
3yrs later, it was excruciating to climb the stairs - with the extra weight
I'm sure it aggravated the hip softening coupled with poor stamina. If I
were to have another pregnancy at 40+, I would make sure I was in as good a
shape if not better as I was at 35.

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


Great post Erika :-)

Mary Ann

T Flynn wrote:
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.

Mother Nature dictated for me - I didn't ovulate till 14 1/2 months
post-partum, which will give us a spacing of about 23 months. By 14 months,
DD was mostly sleeping through, had got lots of teeth and we knew how to
cope with getting the remainder, and she can occupy herself quite well
reading a book or whatever if I need a lie down.

Good luck with things.

Cathy
DD 8 Jan 03
EDD 8 Dec 04

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:

Extra data aside, I think two years is easier for the kids (because they will
be closer and will quickly forget they were ever displaced) but three years is
easier for moms. That's my opinion but is also based on theories I have read
in books here and there over the years.


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?

Unless you had trouble getting pregnant in the first place, I would probably
wait at least a year before trying for another. OTOH, if there's some doubt
about getting pregnant on the first try, I might start sooner. A one year gap
between babies is hard--I've done it--but it's better than possibly ending up
not having a second at all, IMHO.



Leslie

Emily (2/4/91)
Jake (1/27/94)
Teddy (2/15/95)
William (3/5/01 -- VBA3C, 13 lbs. 5 oz.)
and Lorelei, expected 11/2/04

"Children come trailing clouds of glory from God, which is their home."
~ William Wordsworth