We’re trying to decide now - daughter is 3 in April, and we don’t want to leave it too long before the next.
Most of our friends who had their first at the same time as us have popped out the second between 18-24 months. Life commitments has meant that’s not an option for us, but any more than 5 years would be too much IMO.
So we’re aiming for another in mid-2012 which would give just over 4 yrs; we may try to get a third out within two years if all goes well.
I guess it partly depends on the age of the parents - a first child at 30 and then two more at two-year intervals means childbirth is done before 35, which seems like a good idea, but some people are happier with kids later in life.
(Snipped)
I was 25 when I had my first baby, and 38 when I had my last, so I have perspective from both viewpoints. There are pros and cons to both sides of the coin.
Pros:
I definitely had more patience for the last one
My hubby and I were more financially stable
I’d already figured out, more or less, what my life was about
I didn’t have any resentment about my youngest robbing me of any of the ‘joys of youth’, since my youth was more or less over
Cons:
I don’t have as much energy as I did with the first two
Often (at least around here) people my age have their lives to themselves, more or less; I have a kid to consider in everything I do
People at our age are usually free to do things like go away for the weekend just on a whim, go out to dinner and a movie on a whim, etc. Again, we have a kid to consider in all these plans. True she’s old enough now that she can be left alone for several hours, but it’s always part of the equation
Risk, of course, is a factor; I had more problems with my last pregnancy than with my first two, and I’m convinced it’s because I was older. I was on partial bed rest for the last five months of the pregnancy. That was a pain.
When I was pregnant with my youngest, I often heard the old chestnut of “Oh, having a baby at this age will keep you young!” Well, I don’t know about keeping me young, but she sure has kept me entertained!
Also, remember that having a late-life baby is not always a choice. I went to school with a boy (he was 15 when I first met him) who was adopted, because his parents couldn’t have babies. The following year, when Richard was 16, and his mother was 43, she kept having symptoms she continually chalked up to menopause. Finally, she contacted her doctor because she kept gaining weight and was unable to lose it. Yep, after spending her entire 20+ year marriage without birth control (because she couldn’t have babies), she was pregnant. By the time she found out about it, she was seven months pregnant. Kind of late to think of terminating. She ended up having a healthy baby boy.
Might I add, while we’re on the subject, that I think these women you see on TV who have babies when they (the women in question) are in their 60s are just nuts.:eek:
Lil bro and I are six years apart due to my mom’s health when I was young. I won’t lie and say it worked out great as little kids (mostly due to him being ADHD and quick to lash out physically until he was treated at age 11 and changed completely), but my brother and I have been very close for the past 20 years, which is more than a lot of people with less rocky starts can say. If we could work things out, surely your kids will too.
If I have kids, they’ll have to be closer in age than we were, since I’m almost 34 and still looking for Mr. Right.
Ours are 18 months apart. We had them as close together as we could manage (a miscarriage got in the way). We had no plan other than “We want two kids and we want the ‘dealing with babies’ part over with as soon as possible.” It has worked out very well and they are best friends. There are a lot of conveniences, too, since they go to the same school, participate in the same activities, and share the same group of friends. We don’t have to split up (mom taking one and dad taking the other) all the time to accommodate their activities.
My mother had 7 kids in 9 years. We boys all had at least one brother who was close to our age and we always played together well. My sisters are about 6 years apart, which was too much for them to be playmates.
I’m seriously impressed with how on topic this thread has stayed. But because I’m a curious bear and know there’s at least one other viewpoint to be heard from here: Optimal Age Spacing For Children - Children’s Viewpoint
Ours are 18 months apart too: girl (13), boy (11). They get along at times. We thought “the closer, the better” and it probably was OK until one started down the girl path of life, and the other started down the boy path.
They fight over who gets the front seat. They fight over what to watch on TV. They fight over what radio station to listen to in the car. They fight over bathroom rights.
This will probably get better again in a few years. But for now it’s like watching two wolves in the wilderness fighting for the alpha role.
When my oldest girls were young enough for this to be a problem, I solved it by having ‘A’ days and ‘B’ days; one of them was ‘A’, one of them was ‘B’. If it was their day, they automatically got the front seat, radio station choice, etc. BUT also, on ‘their’ day, they were the one that had to set and clear the table. So it combined a lesson on taking turns with a lesson on ‘privileges come with responsibilities’.
Girl, 8. Boy, 6-1/2. They’re both open to playing things that are traditionally limited to one gender. He has modeled many a dress and she thinks digging holes in the ground is great craic.
I have two children, three years apart. I think that’s too much. The closer the better. Twins would have been ideal. (My children are 5 and 8 now so my perspective only goes that far.)
My reasons:
The more time difference there is between the two, the more chance you have of them being in different schools, which is logistically more difficult for drop off and pick up, especially if both parents have fulltime jobs. If the two brothers were in the same school, they could play with each other at recess, meet at lunchtime, support each other etc. They would have more shared experiences.
When we play board games all together, we try to find a game complicated enough to keep the interest of the 8-year-old but simple enough so that the 5-year-old can understand what’s going on.
When we have movie nights, we want to watch movies that will interest both the 8-year-old and the 5-year-old. The 5-year-old is watching movies that I would never have let the 8-year-old watch at his age.
When I have a foot race with them, if they start at the same time, the 8-year-old always wins and the younger one isn’t happy; if I give the 5-year-old a head start, then the 8-year-old complains that it’s not fair.
My brother and I are 18 months apart and I still consider him my best friend even though we don’t see each other as much as we should since he lives in a different continent.
Or having them close together or far apart. My “not quite 13 month apart” kids are the result of adoption, no birth control because after three years of trying we’d given up and “surprise!” (I only missed my first trimester). Other friends have theirs six years apart, their first was conceived the month they started trying…they wanted to space their kids two years apart…the second one is adopted. I’d have gone for 2 or 2 1/2 years.
Its nice to talk about optimal spacing. But if you are lucky enough to be able to space your children the way you wanted, its luck.
A bit of a hijack from a non-parent - for those saying “the closer together the better,” this study might be interesting. It’s preliminary, and the reasons are certainly not clear, but there is an apparent correlation between close spacing of siblings and diagnoses of autism for the younger child.
My kids are very close in age - there are four of them, with age gaps ranging from 16 months to 22 months - so I’ve got a 5 year old, a 4 year old, a 2 year old and a 6-month old. This is hell on the diaper budget, as I’ve had at least 2 kids in diapers (and sometimes 3) for the last 4 years, with another 2 years of diapers ahead of me. That part sucks. The daily grind of 4 little ones that require so much help is very taxing on me, but that seems to be improving month to month now that the oldest is in school and doing so many more things for himself. Of course, staying at home with them for now is almost a given, as the amount I’d pay for daycare for 4 kids would negate any full-time income I’d bring in. Having my hands tied on that issue is kind of frustrating, but again, a problem that resolves itself over time.
The part where they all play together and keep each other company? Awesome.
The three boys can recycle clothes and shoes on down the line, making each kid progressively require less new clothing. (Mind you, I do get them each SOME new things.) I think the food budget for 4 kids close in age is probably less per head. Obviously, money’s tight anyway, but with 4 mouths to feed, grabbing McDonald’s for a quick dinner copout is simply not cost effective. My kids are much more likely to be eating healthy food, cooked and served at home, with the whole family at the dinner table. Fast food is a special, once-a-month, sort of treat for them. I don’t know that I’d be as vigilant about that if I only had 1 or 2.
All in all, I’m glad it turned out the way it did. I’d do it again.