Tales From the Crib: From the Tales Inbox: Ideal Spacing of Children

Monday, September 29, 2008

From the Tales Inbox: Ideal Spacing of Children

What's the "best" time to try for another baby? My husband and I are discussing when we should start trying for #2 (we have an eight month old), and we're not sure. What are some things we need to think about before giving it another go? (For example, should #1 be potty trained first?) I was hoping to get some different perspectives from people who had their babies close vs. spacing them apart. Thanks!

33 Comments:

I strongly advocate 2+ years spacing. My friends who have done shorter stints seem to, well, kind of lose their minds. It is just REALLY hard to chase a rambunctious 18 month old away from a busy road while you are nursing a newborn. Also, I think they miss out on a bit of the growth of each child; It is hard to savor story time with your toddler if the new baby needs your immediate attention.

Obviously, this is different for every child, but I think it is beneficial to wait until your youngest is somewhat independent before introducing a brand new dependent to the mix.

Whenever people talk about the advantages of being done with having kids at 25 or thirty or having the kids out of the house by the time they are 50, I wonder why they are having kids anyway? Just to get them out of the way?
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 09:00:00 AM
The right answer? Whenever the Holy Ghost tells you to have another child.
Of course, that's also easier said than done.
Here's my spacing:
Between #1 and #2: 22 months
Between #2 and #3: 18 months
Between #3 and #4: 2 1/2 years (to almost the day)
Between #4 and #5: Dang. Not pregnant yet. But we've been trying for a while --it'll end up being at least 2 years (and 4 months) or more. Probably more.

My easiest gap? 22 months. Hardest? 2 1/2 years.
That 18 month gap? Eh. Whatever.

I'm the opposite of ESO. In fact, I'm one of the women she seems to think has lost their minds. I do want my kids done when I'm 30 (at this rate, it'll be 31). I do want my kids "out of the house" by the time I'm 50. And it's not just so I can go on vacations and because I'm selfish or whatever: It's so I can have a young strong body in order to carry the children, and a young strong body in order to raise the children. Sure, not everything turns out the way we want it to, but study after study after study has shown that women who wait until they are older to have children have grave disadvantages. There's more infertility, there's more exhaustion, not to mention the huge chances of having children with disabilities (which isn't the end of the world; it's just a fact).

But the spacing of kids? I say do whatever you want. I have friends with four children all 16-18 months apart and they thought it was great. I have friends with kids 4-5 years apart (they have six kids) and they thought it was great.

Do what works for you. But don't be surprised if the Lord intervenes and changes your mind. That's happened to me a couple of times, too. ;)
posted by Cheryl at 9/29/2008 09:12:00 AM
I always thought I wanted my kids close in age, but I didn't even start my period until my first child was 12 months old! We started trying shortly after that and it took till she was 19 months old to conceive. So the first two are 28 months apart. With number 2 I started my period a little earlier (10 months) but we were really ready to start trying till he was about 17 months old. (Plus we were moving, waiting for insurance to start, etc) It took a few months and now I'm pregnant with number 3. They will be 29 months apart.

The reason I thought I wanted them close in age was so they could be good friends and all that stuff. But I think they will be good friends at 28 months apart. One downside to this age difference is that you can't really get them potty trained before the new baby comes, and then it's a lot of work to do it after the baby comes (like when you are nursing and you know your kid has to go and you don't catch it in time!) So my first child didn't get potty trained till she was almost 3 1/2 because I just didn't have the time or energy to get it done sooner.

I do think that ages 18 months till about 3 is such a learning and growing age that it's nice to be able to devote some one on one time with your kids, and having a newborn around makes it's hard to do that. Also, I can't imagine being pregnant and having a child younger than 18 months because I get really sick and easily fatigued.

So many factors. I guess we didn't really "decide", we just kinda waited to see when it was the right time and then went for it. Good luck!
posted by Ashley at 9/29/2008 10:21:00 AM
I took a developmental psychology class recently in which this question was asked of the professor. He replied that in his personal opinion, 3 years apart seemed to be ideal. He said there were many reasons for his opinion, but he felt the most important was that a 3 year gap was best in allowing children to develop a strong concept of self, independent of their siblings, and without as much of the feeling of "older sibling A takes X role, so as younger sibling B I must counteract with Y role." Not that this is an authoritative conclusion in any study, just the reasoned opinion of an ivy league researcher.
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 10:32:00 AM
There are two ways to plan the next baby -on purpose and by accident. I know as a young mother I over thought this and I thought I knew what was best of me but really what it came down to is when God sent us another spirit it was perfect (not necessarily easy) in every way for our family. I had 6 kidos in 14 years and I had planned to have 4-6 in 10 years. Just trust that God is in charge :) and he will sustain you, because he will.
posted by delilas at 9/29/2008 10:51:00 AM
Pregnancy doesn't happen easily for me so I take it when I can get it. I think that it is a transition for the first child no matter when it happens. My kids are 20 months apart. There have been hard moments, days, weeks. I can tell you for sure that the thought has never crossed my mind that I wish that the second pregnancy hadn't happened so soon. My older child and I still have lots of time alone and she is learning earlier on to be patient and to share. I've heard that the first year is the most challenging when they are this close, but at four months in, I'm saying that it keeps getting better and is not so bad. One strategy I have for success is to get out when you can, plan social events when you can. It has been easier for my older one to transition if she is not stuck at home with me nursing the baby, but instead playing with friends or at a playground.
posted by Linz at 9/29/2008 11:53:00 AM
My girls are 25 months apart. This is perfect for me. They have a love/ hate relationship, but they play really well, most of the time, unlike right now. The three year old is terrorizing the five year old by not listening.

If I have more children, I would want two more so they can also play with one another and have a friend closer to their age, and I would space them 24-36 months a part if I have a say in it. Of course the Lord always makes the final decision.

ESO: I'm 25 and I want all my children out of the house by the time I'm 50. Mostly because I want my own life and I was so young when I started. I also want to be healthy and strong for not only my children but grandchildren. I find those who purposely wait so long to be selfish and wonder what's the point when you'll be too old to take care of your children or grandchildren?

You've really started a whole other discussion. Is it better to have your own life before you have children, and then possibly leave that behind to take care of them if you follow the counsel of the prophet, or is it better to become a mother and then have your own life after you have children? Plus there are higher health risks associated with pregnancy later in life, like Cheryl stated.

Really we all want to have our independence and what time in life we enjoy that independence shouldn't matter to anyone but that person and their spouse.
posted by Lacey at 9/29/2008 12:14:00 PM
There are quite a few interesting comments on here. Ironically I can guess who has kids, and who does not from some of them. Here is my 2 cents (I have one kid, and she just hit 9 months).

I had a horrible first pregnancy. All smells, even toothpaste on my husband's breath made me hurl. Halfway through the smells stopped being bad, but everything I ate gave me migraines. Aside from knowing I was not a happy pregnant lady, I also did a bit of research into what's best for my body. Almost everything I read said 2 years is how long your body needs to recuperate from having a child. That doesn't mean I will be waiting until #1 hits 2 years. But I have a general idea of when I want another one.

On another perhaps TMI personal note, it took us about 6 months to get back in the saddle again. And even then, it wasn't very enjoyable. So I know that will affect my willingness to jump into baby mode again. We think that part of that lack of desire is a protection from getting pregnant before I was emotionally ready. I am at a point now that I could get pregnant and be ok with it, but I would personally rather wait until I don't have to give as much attention to #1.

And all you women that have had kids a year apart, that's great for you. Its just not something I could do. At least not yet.
posted by rebecca at 9/29/2008 12:18:00 PM
Mine are two years apart and it was quite busy for the first year and then I felt like I had the hang of it. They are now great playmates which is nice. However, some people handle children closer together than others. I would certainly pray about it. You can think and plan and meditate on it for days, weeks or months, but you still will never know until that baby arrives how it is going to be. That is why I would advise to pray on it.
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 12:48:00 PM
Like all of the comments above have mentioned, this is such a personal and individual decision. It's hard to give advice about unless you're, well, you.
Anyway, I have three kids and a fourth on the way. #1 & #2 are 21 months apart, #2 & #3 are 25 months apart, and #3 & #4 will end up being about 28 months apart. When we started trying to have a second baby, we thought the ideal spacing would be two years. I have a brother who is two years older than me, and my husband has 3 siblings, and they're all in two-year increments. We both personally felt that two years was best for multiple reasons. We thought it would be long enough so that the first would be semi-independent by the time that the second came along, but that they would both be in relatively the same age group all throughout their life, which would make for a good friendship. I had a very hard time getting pregnant with #1, so we figured we'd start early to give ourselves a little wiggle-room with #2. Turns out pregnancy happened a little easier the second time, so they are 21 instead of 24 months apart. But, for numbers 3 & 4, there was more difficulty getting pregnant, hence the larger increments. From my experience, the two year range has been great. Enough time for you to get to know the older child, and to developmentally prepare them for having a younger sibling. I am a kindergarten teacher and I very frequently see extremely frazzled mothers with children only 10-12 months apart. While this may work for some, I have rarely seen parents who (in the toddler-baby stage) were handling it well.
As other readers have said, it all happens in God's time. But I would recommend (depending on the nature of your first pregnancy) giving yourself wiggle-room with getting pregnant for a second time.
Like I said, two years has worked wonderfully for us.
Good luck with the decision, and remember, even if it doesn't work out the way you want it to, God has a plan and a reason!
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 12:56:00 PM
I haven't read all of the comments in detail. Of course it is a personal decision. I understand the mentality of having kids super close together, and spreading it farther apart. To me, three things were kind of important. One, that I felt I had "enough" time with my older child. The summer before I got pregnant with number two DS and I had THE BEST summer... just the two of us (and his dad of course :). Two, that I felt like MYSELF again. I just wanted to feel like my body was my own, and that I had some freedom again (since I nursed my son for a year). And three, that my kids were close enough in age that they would really play and connect once the littlest one grew up a bit. They are 2 years and three months apart.

I'm sure there are challenges no matter how close or far apart your kids are. Good luck. Keep us posted. :)
posted by Beth at 9/29/2008 04:30:00 PM
My oldest turned five just a few months after her brother was born - 57mo? I love the gap between my two. We had ZERO sibling rivalry issues when he was a newborn (not anymore, obviously, with the grabby twos upon us), and she was a huge help with the baby. If I were to have another baby - and I'm not planning on it right now - I would absolutely wait another two years.
posted by Miss Shelly at 9/29/2008 04:32:00 PM
whoa folks--I am being accused of advocating people delay motherhood until their 30s--not so. I AM an advocate of spacing, for sure. I just see some people set an artificial time line for themselves, which I find silly.

But for the record, I do think some people make better parenting choices when they are a wee bit older. I just think that often a seasoned 33 year old will handle a hard toddlerhood better than a frenzied 21 year old, especially if that young mom has decided not to space kids, but let "whatever happens happens." I see MANY young mothers struggle and I don't think that is the ideal environment for babies. Space it out, enjoy--it is much better for the kiddies.

No one has said this precisely, but I do know people who don't use any BC and just figure pregnancies will happen when they are God's will. I wonder if they would also apply this logic to a 14 year old mother? Probably not.

Anyway--procreate away.
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 04:56:00 PM
My kids are 24 months apart then 4 years apart and then 4 years apart. The baby toddler thing is hard for me, so I like having only one. Once my oldest two were 3.5 and 5.5 it was awesome having them only two years apart.
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 08:19:00 PM
Let me also add that it totally rocks having a baby when the others are 10, 8 and 4. We are having a blast. If all my newborn months had been like this I would have had bunches of kids. I finally understand how and why those big families have lots of kids. I used to think they were crazy or I was crazy because two little ones were so beyond me how could anyone manage to have several more?
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 08:22:00 PM
Child-spacing discussions always make me laugh--and cringe a bit-- because I've never had the luxury have getting to have any kind of choice in this matter. I think it's something that most moms simply worry too much about. I don't think that any one spacing is better than another. If you feel that pull from the spirit that it's time for another, and if the Lord grants for it to happen, then it's the right spacing.

My kids are four years apart, which is not what I would have chosen if it had been up to me, but it's been perfect. My son did have a bit of trouble adjusting to not being the only child, but I don't know that it would have been any different if he'd been younger.

My kids are very close. I don't buy the idea that kids have to be closely spaced in order to be great friends. My older child is very protective of his little sister and he completely delights in her. And she adores him. She also gets a lot of attention from many of his friends who think she's cute and fun. I think the bonds and connectedness between siblings have more to do with the effort parents put into it than how close in age the kids are. There are other factors such as personality that play into it as well.

I too don't get what the big deal is about being done with kids by the time you're thirty. I didn't get to start until I was in my 30's (again, not by my own choice), and I have loved being a mom in my 30's. It cracks me up that I'm viewed as "old". I do think that at times I am more physically tired, but I think it's balanced out by my being a bit more mature, wise, and patient than I would have been if I'd been a lot younger. (I don't consider myself to have mastered any of these things at all! But when I think of how I was in my early 20's, I know I'm a much better mother now.) And, honestly, I can't say for sure that I would be any less tired if I were younger because I have nothing to compare it to. I think having young children makes you tired no matter what your age.

I won't be an ancient grandmother, either--I'll probably be in my late 50's and early 60's when I have young grandkids. That's the age my mom is now, and I think it's perfect. I don't think I'll have any problem taking care of my grandchildren at that age.
posted by Anonymous at 9/29/2008 08:31:00 PM
ESO-
Come on. You said that mothers with kids close together "lose their minds." And then you wondered why women who tried to have children young were even HAVING kids.
My point was: if a woman has a timeline? So what? Who cares? Half the time she'll learn the hard way that God usually has a different timeline anyway. But in the meantime, she does what she feels/wants/needs in regard to her family.

I just found it odd that instead of discussing your specific situation, you criticized others for theirs. And then did it again in your second comment, all while saying you weren't.

Huh?

[And fwiw, I think I'm a MUCH better mother at 29 than I was at 22. But that's because I've been a mother for SEVEN years. Not because I'm older. I don't agree that a mother at 35 is any better equipped than a mother at 21. How is that even possible? I majored in Human Development and nothing I learned prepared me for motherhood. I had to throw it all out the window because motherhood isn't a book.]

Sigh. I really shouldn't get involved in these discussions.
Sorry.
posted by Cheryl at 9/29/2008 08:51:00 PM
I skimmed....but cheryl your last comment made me think:

I have seen some first-time-moms who were in their late thirties, early forties struggle with motherhood then the very young mothers....I think for a few reasons:

1. they are farther removed from their own childhood
2. they are set in their solitary ways?
3. they got a lot of adult time out of their system and now they are smothering their kids

This is just one hypothesis.

I think benefits of being younger mom:
strong body (Cheryl's argument), although I bet Dana Torres might disagree with that argument..she's a rock people.
remember what it;s like to be a kid, might relate better?
prehaps has younger siblings that are still kid-like, I have a teenager as a sister, keeps it a little real for me.

This has nothing to do with spacing.

3 years has worked well for me.

God has his own plan. I wanted to have another that was around 3 years again, but if I do have another it will be 4 or more years from my youngest...
posted by Kage at 9/30/2008 05:59:00 AM
Cheryl,

I think you need to read my comments again, because I don't think you got out of them what I put into them. If you would like to take offense, I cannot stop you. I simply described some general impressions based on a wider canvas than just my own situation because really, what does my one situation have to do with one other person's situation? Nothing.

Generally, I think a happy mother makes a happy family. I also think that many women choose to make their lives artificially hard, which I do not think is good for them or their kids. If you want a bunch of kids and you have the luxury of spacing, I think it is wise to do so.

I am glad you feel your mothering has progressed over the past 7 years. I believe that has as much to do with your age and maturity (now and then) as it does with your mothering experience. I am OK with disagreeing about that without venturing into the land of critical.
posted by Anonymous at 9/30/2008 07:28:00 AM
I just don't think you can compare older mothers vs. younger ones, or different spacings, or whatever, and say one is better or easier than the other. Motherhood is a struggle for everyone at different times. I've known older mothers who did have a hard transition, which could be attributed to their ages, but also could be caused by any number of other factors. I've known younger mothers who struggled with parenthood for a variety of reasons, some of which may have had to do with age, but others which were completely removed from age.

We each are on our own unique journey here, and I feel that Heavenly Father carefully crafts and allows the learning experiences we need, whether that means lots of children coming one right after the other early on, or long waits for and between children later on. It really bothers me to see myself lumped into a category of "older mother" and generalizations/stereotypes made because of my age, and I can also see that it would be the same for someone in the opposite situation. There are simply so many factors that affect our experiences that I think it's futile to compare too much.

I'm one who mentioned that I'm a better mother in my 30's than I would have been in my 20's. That's not simply because of my age, but because of the kinds of experiences I was having during those years I was waiting for children. Experiences with infertility and the growth it brought me prepared me for motherhood, and especially for adoptive motherhood. Yet motherhood is still a struggle, still a process, and I'm still having experiences as a mother that are molding me and teaching me.

We're all on our own track here, and Heavenly Father is aware of what each of need to grow. I think we all have to "grow into" motherhood in a sense, and often the things we think we need are not what He sees that we need in order to learn and progress.

During the time I was childless, I was reading and studying and observing others around me, waiting for the time I could put those ideas into practice. Sure, many of those ideas have gone out the window. But many of them have stayed. I felt more secure in my decisions of early parenthood because of that time I had to study. I was more confident, at least for a few years. I'm glad I had that basis, even though it was a very painful time.

Yet that form of learning is not what the Lord intended for everyone. I used to feel very critical of my sister-in-law because of her parenting when her children were young. Alot of it was that I was extremely envious, and I felt she did not appreciate what she had. Now I understand some of the rigors she faced. But, she has grown tremendously in her role as a mother. She is now someone I look up to for her parenting. The Lord knew what she needed to grow, and He provided it for her--very specific experiences precisely tailored to her needs and her potential. Just as he did for me.

No one can say that one type of experience is better/easier than another when it comes to motherhood. No one can even say that easier necessarily means better! So maybe one mother had a hard struggle at some point, but that doesn't mean she should have done things differently to make it easier. Maybe that hard struggle was an important part of her progression.
posted by Anonymous at 9/30/2008 11:27:00 AM
"No one can say that one type of experience is better/easier than another when it comes to motherhood"

And yet, this is what the original post asked for. I don't think anyone has really stepped beyond appropriate speculation/sharing, and I am sure the original poster will take all comments with a grain of salt.
posted by Anonymous at 9/30/2008 12:04:00 PM
ESO-
And yet, here we have a variety of women's perspectives! Why did you feel the need to share general impressions based on external judgements? Couldn't you just let the women who had those experiences share it themselves? It felt like a whispered "Psst! Guess what? *Those* women are crazy!"

But you know the biggest surprise? I really wasn't that offended. I'm still not. I'm just confused because I actually felt sorry for you. I had assumed you must not have realized how condescending and rude you sounded (thus my second comment).
Interesting.

Ah, well. Chalk it up to the written word and the lack of facial expressions. Happens all the time.
posted by Cheryl at 9/30/2008 12:37:00 PM
I know that's what the OP asked for. That is my answer to the original post. No spacing is better than another. No age to be a mother is better than another. You can say that there are pros and cons to one or the other, but even those don't really matter. The only thing that matters is seeking direction from above and being willing to follow it, or being flexible enough to let the Lord choose for you what He will.

As far as speculation, I guess that does matter to me as I hear people making really incorrect generalizations about situations they haven't experienced (such as being an older mother in my case). I think whenever we feel people are singling out our particular situation for scrutiny or criticism, there's a natural tendency to want to speak out and say, "Hey now!" and correct perceptions.

(I'm afraid this is coming across very blunt and it might sound like I'm offended, but I promise I'm not.)
posted by Anonymous at 9/30/2008 12:40:00 PM
Wow...didn't have enough time to read through all the comments but I will give you my two cents and hope you haven't read it 10 times before.

1. You are not in TOTAL control of when #2 will come. I learned this the hard way. Sometimes it will be earlier and sometimes it will be later. I am now pregnant with #2 and realizing that this spacing is more appropriate and doable for me as a mom even though I wanted the spacing a lot closer.

2. Be ok with whatever spacing you end up going with (or getting). There are pros and cons to 10 months apart to 10 years apart. Whatever the case ends up for your family - focus on the pros. There really is no right answer for two people.

3.What kind of mom are you? Do you feel like you NEED to have #1 potty trained before you have a baby? There are lots of families with two kids in diapers but if YOU aren't ok with that (ie that would stress you over the edge) maybe potty train #1 before you start trying again. You never know how long that will take and you don't want to resent your oldest because they aren't conforming to how you think things should be. Does that make sense?

Good luck! The good news is, whatever you and your family decide will be the right decision!
posted by Melissa at 10/01/2008 09:22:00 AM
Heck yes I want my kids out of the house by the time I'm in my 50s. My oldest will be out of the house by the time I'm 40-ish. Personally I can't wait! That's one of the many reasons I decided to have kids so young.
posted by Anonymous at 10/01/2008 09:46:00 AM
Since everyone has already given you the pray, it's personal, listen to spirit advice. I'll tell you what worked for me. And so far, I have been lucky enough to plan each pregnancy. Our first 2 are 3 years apart. I knew it had to be this way to save my sanity because we were living in NYC. The oldest needed to be potty trained, be able to walk to the subway and up and down subway stairs by themselves and generally be able to listen and follow directions well (needed to be beyond the "bolting" stage).

Many people told me having them this far apart would be hard because they wouldn't play well with each other, but that has not been the case at all. In fact, I feel like they fight less because the older one has better reasoning and distracting skills that a toddler can lack.

#2 and #3 are 2 1/2 years apart which has also been great. She was also potty trained before #3 came which was VERY nice.

I know myself, and I know closer spacing would be terribly hard on me. Luckily, God has agreed. I do think He expects us to know ourselves and our situations and make well-thought out decisions for our lives (although He reserves the right to change it up now and then).
I have no desire to have it all done with by a certain age. My mom was 45 when she had me and she has always been a superb mom and grandmother. And looking back, I don't think she thinks my surprse arrival ruined her life too much (at least not anymore).

Good luck with #2!
posted by This is Carrie at 10/01/2008 09:47:00 AM
Haven't read ALL of the comments but wanted to put my 2 cents in about young adulthood because several of the comments seemed to mention things like "getting the kids out of the house by the time I'm 50." It is becoming more and more common for young adults ages 18 to late 20s to live with their parents or at least be dependent on them. This is because more young adults are going beyond getting 4 yr degrees. I'm 24 and I see this with A LOT of my friends.
posted by brenbot at 10/01/2008 03:00:00 PM
I remember my mom telling me when I was a young bride undecided about when or whether to have children that it was much easier in her day, because there was no deciding, it was just "take what the Lord sends." I was the youngest of five in a very happy family, and never had any of my own.

My sister was told early in her first pregnancy that she might be carrying twins, and she was so disappointed when it turned out to be only one that she wanted another right away. The doctor advised her to wait 4 months before becoming pregnant. My second nephew is exactly 13 months and one day younger than the first. :)
posted by Kathi D at 10/02/2008 01:52:00 AM
I know there are already a lot of comments, but wanted to add something new as well as everything else. Your doctor makes a great person to talk this type issue over with. My first pregnancy was 9 months of nausea, and was therefore hard for my body to get those nutrients needed for the baby to flourish. The doctor advised giving my body some recovery time between weaning and a second pregnancy, to get the stores of nutrients back up for the next baby. The length of recovery time differs for each mother, but as I've discovered, when I'm healthy and have lots of energy, I'm much more able to deal with the challenges of caring for wonderful children everyday. That may not be as big an issue for you, if you had very healthy pregnancy, but health as a mother is important to the kids too. So, prayer, and consulting your doctor, who should know more about your personal situation, are the best ways I know to make that decision.
posted by Anonymous at 10/05/2008 04:40:00 PM
I love the last comment here. I've been considering a second child (1st is 9 months old). Pregnancy was very hard on my body, mind, and spirit. Hyperemisis, PTSD, pregnancy induced anxiety and depression, pre-eclampsia... The previous comment from anon reminded me that I need to be in a really good place before I give my life away again. For my sake, for my young daughter's sake, and for the sake of the child to be...and for DH who serves us so faithfully. I'm going to wait until I feel strong and healthy again, and then wait for a few months after that to start trying again.
posted by Anonymous at 10/12/2008 05:20:00 PM
Just to add another thought on the topic...I personally believe a child should be breastfed until he/she weans herself, which can be on average around 2 1/2 to 4 years or more given world statistics (not our country's statistics.) I think this is an important time of brain and psychological development, which breastfeeding helps in a way nothing else can. I think if we look more at the length of time God intended little ones to be nursed, it might give us a clue about spacing. (Yes, I realize this is not a form of BC and women have gotten pregnant while still nursing.)
posted by Anonymous at 11/14/2008 10:09:00 PM
Just for the record - I was in a baby store once and a older woman just nodded her head back and forth while in line. "My daughter just had her first kid at 42. She doesn't know what she's doing at all."

Seriously, all the wisdom from life lived so far doesn't make you a better mother. Women start from the same point. It's all a crazy, new, wonderful, scary experience. Stating otherwise is just getting on a soapbox and preaching.

Why not just say that you should have sex for the first time when you're older, because you'll appreciate it more?

First-time mom at 30.
posted by Anonymous at 8/28/2010 10:42:00 AM
I had my first baby when I was 32 and it has been wonderful. The thirties are a great time to have children. It gave me time to get my college degree, MBA, travel, and progress in my career. I think that if I had not had all of these experiences, I may have not appreciated motherhood as much as I do now. Children limit the amount of activities you can participate in and I think I might have felt trapped or felt like I was missing out on some of the 20's experience if I started earlier. I am now taking a couple of years off from work to spend tIme with my daughter and I am loving it. After working long stressful days in finance I truly appreciate this experience. We are trying for baby number 2 to complete our family. There will probably be about 4 years difference which I think will work well for our family. I was not in a big hurry to have a 2nd because I wanted to savor the time with my first and not be distracted and juggling. I agree with another poster that parents and personality have more to do with sibling bonds than age differences. Also, fertility generally doesn't become an issue until mid to late 30's. I would prefer the "me" time to be in my 20's not 50's. Generally you don't start a career in your 50's, white water raft, go dancing, travel, etc...all of the things I got to do before kids.
posted by uscmommy at 9/26/2011 11:52:00 PM

Monday, September 29, 2008

From the Tales Inbox: Ideal Spacing of Children

33 Comments:

Contributors

For the Mom-to-Be

So You Want To...

Our Tributes to NYC

Blogs We Cruise

Links We Love

Previous Posts