Why does everyone have their kids two years apart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Youngest. It remains to be seen if she's the toughest.

Totally. PP with the January kid here. I'd much rather the January birthday versus an August or September birthday for that reason. Of course it would be fine and there are pros and cons to any birthday, but I'm glad my kid will be on the older side, but not the absolute oldest.

Other reasons why I like the January birthday:

1. Not heavily pregnant in DC summers;
2. Started daycare in May, which gave us a few months for her to get bigger before cold and flu season;
3. Other kids aren't on vacation and missing her birthday party (like was the case when I was a kid with a summer birthday)

Point being, it's crazy to "refuse" any particular birthday, even if you're lucky enough to perfectly time your pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

I have a law degree and am a practicing lawyer. Ivy-educated. First kid at 29, third (and last) at 33. Sorry to disappoint.

Being so well educated, seems like you would have known it's not healthy to have kids so close together.

...and you should know it's not healthy to have a first pregnancy at 38, right?

Of course. Who said anything about 38? That comment seems out of nowhere - what does spacing kids in a healthier way have to do with having a first kid at 38? Random.

I had my first pregnancy at 38. What exactly was unhealthy about it? Do tell me.

Higher risks for poor outcomes for mother and baby.

And yet we both turned out fine. Just because there's a chance of something bad happening doesn't mean it's unhealthy to do it.

Uh, right. Same with spacing your children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

I have a law degree and am a practicing lawyer. Ivy-educated. First kid at 29, third (and last) at 33. Sorry to disappoint.

Being so well educated, seems like you would have known it's not healthy to have kids so close together.

Sounds like they were all two years apart. Isn't that what WHO recommends?

Nope. The recommendation is to wait two year after the birth of a child to begin trying for another pregnancy. So even if you were to get pregnant right away, the kids would be close to three years apart.

I am baffled at the. Number of people who can't seem to figure this guidance out. The PP is right, children should be spaced a minimum or 2 years 9 months apart for optimal health.

Are you really that anxious that you plan the spacing based on this?
What's really going to happen if you space them 24 months apart? It's probably 0.001% better to wait an additional 9 months. Lol
Not screwing up the spacing for something so negligible.

What do you mean by screwing up the spacing? So it's "wrong" to have kids 3 years apart? If you knew anything about psychology, you would know it's actually better for the children to have 3-4 years between them. People assume kids who are very close in age will be "best friends " and they can just lump them all into the same activities and interests, which is really harmful in the long run. Kids need individual attention from their parents, and they need to be allowed to form relationships with friends and siblings based on their own interests and personalities, not just lumped in together because their parents wanted to "get it all over with."

And yes, I would space children farther than 2 years apart based on the very real evidence of better optimal health and developmental outcomes, lower risk of autism and developmental disorders, and better psychological outcomes for the child. Call me crazy, but I want to maximum the chances of best outcomes for my offspring.

Lollll this is quite possibly the most dramatic answer on here. Give it a rest, and stop with the selective "psychology". Also be careful with that attitude or your kids are going to turn out extremely high maintenance

[Anonymous]

My three are each around 3.5 years apart, and it works well for us. I had them at 26, 29, and 33. The middle is best friends with both the oldest and youngest. They all get along well, and our lives feel balanced and complete. I'm sure other spacing is equally wonderful. You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

I have a law degree and am a practicing lawyer. Ivy-educated. First kid at 29, third (and last) at 33. Sorry to disappoint.

Being so well educated, seems like you would have known it's not healthy to have kids so close together.

Sounds like they were all two years apart. Isn't that what WHO recommends?

Nope. The recommendation is to wait two year after the birth of a child to begin trying for another pregnancy. So even if you were to get pregnant right away, the kids would be close to three years apart.

I am baffled at the. Number of people who can't seem to figure this guidance out. The PP is right, children should be spaced a minimum or 2 years 9 months apart for optimal health.

Are you really that anxious that you plan the spacing based on this?
What's really going to happen if you space them 24 months apart? It's probably 0.001% better to wait an additional 9 months. Lol
Not screwing up the spacing for something so negligible.

What do you mean by screwing up the spacing? So it's "wrong" to have kids 3 years apart? If you knew anything about psychology, you would know it's actually better for the children to have 3-4 years between them. People assume kids who are very close in age will be "best friends " and they can just lump them all into the same activities and interests, which is really harmful in the long run. Kids need individual attention from their parents, and they need to be allowed to form relationships with friends and siblings based on their own interests and personalities, not just lumped in together because their parents wanted to "get it all over with."

And yes, I would space children farther than 2 years apart based on the very real evidence of better optimal health and developmental outcomes, lower risk of autism and developmental disorders, and better psychological outcomes for the child. Call me crazy, but I want to maximum the chances of best outcomes for my offspring.

Lollll this is quite possibly the most dramatic answer on here. Give it a rest, and stop with the selective "psychology". Also be careful with that attitude or your kids are going to turn out extremely high maintenance

Whatever makes you feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a weird thread. There seems to be judging for judging sake which just seems unnecessary. There are so many factors that go into family planning/child spacing, some of which we have so little control over. I believe that whatever works for the couple is none of my business and as it has little, if any, impact on my life, why even have an opinion. I think my child spacing is perfect for us. I think my friends' and family's child spacing is perfect for them. It all works.

OP here. No judgement, just asking. Also wondering if "everyone" else sees this 2 year age gap. Maybe it's just the nature of the neighborhood and/or peer pressure, but literally almost everyone around me has children 2 years apart, give or take a couple WEEKS. That's not an accident!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 year is too soon, 3 years is too long.

This
And I also refuse to have my kids be anything where there is a .5. For example, I wouldn't be cool with a 1.5. 2.5 etc age gap.
I like when birthdays are around the same time.

That is bizarre.

Not really. Maybe I'm OCD. But I hate how my one sister is 7 years older than me half the year and 8 years older the other half.
Then you get kids who are 2.5 years apart but three grades apart. I like things neater than that.
Plus, I refused to give my kids birthdays in Nov-March. Those suck.

You have many weird issues.

a) You really are OCD. You do you, but know you sound a little crazy, lady.
b) Not all of us conceive on the first or second shot. As much as I'd like certain birth months, I'll take what I can get.
c) Per above, my kid's January birthday has been just fine. I was a little bummed at first, but was more just happy and relieved we finally got pregnant. DH has a December birthday, so we know to be conscience not to let the holidays overshadow the birthday.

I was annoyed when I realized my kid would have late August birthday because she'll always be the toughest in her class or we'll have to decide to red shirt her. She starts prek this year 2 days after her 4th birthday. Still kinda annoying, but I wouldn't trade her for the world.

I'm concerned when you say you'd refuse to give your kids certain birthdays. Does that mean you'd abort or that you abstain during certain months?

My 2nd has a late August birthday and I worry about the same issue. He's also really small for his age. I mean TINY, and also is speech delayed. I'm definitely keeping the option of redshirting open once we get to that time. My 1st has a late December birthday, which also sucks because it's hard to get people to come to a party during the holiday. This year we are going to have his party earlier in the month.

[Anonymous]

To be quite clear, the WHO recommendation that you wait 2 years after birth to conceive (meaning your kid would be at least 2 yrs 9 mo when DC2 is born) is NOT due to a finding that waiting 24 months is better than waiting 18 months for either mother or child. It appears to be based on the facts that (1) UNICEF recommends breastfeeding your child for two years (which may be more or less appropriate in any given country/situation); and (2) telling people to wait two years is an easy benchmark. It did not make any definitive findings about "residual" risks associated with conceiving 18-27 months after birth. In fact, the report suggests that the lowest risk is to have your child 18-36 months after birth.

Source: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69855/1/WHO_RHR_07.1_eng.pdf

I don't mean to suggest people should take this report as gospel. Just don't feel that you are somehow endangering your baby if you don't wait until exactly 24 months post-birth to become pregnant again. To echo a few PPs--do the spacing that works for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be quite clear, the WHO recommendation that you wait 2 years after birth to conceive (meaning your kid would be at least 2 yrs 9 mo when DC2 is born) is NOT due to a finding that waiting 24 months is better than waiting 18 months for either mother or child. It appears to be based on the facts that (1) UNICEF recommends breastfeeding your child for two years (which may be more or less appropriate in any given country/situation); and (2) telling people to wait two years is an easy benchmark. It did not make any definitive findings about "residual" risks associated with conceiving 18-27 months after birth. In fact, the report suggests that the lowest risk is to have your child 18-36 months after birth.

Source: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69855/1/WHO_RHR_07.1_eng.pdf

I don't mean to suggest people should take this report as gospel. Just don't feel that you are somehow endangering your baby if you don't wait until exactly 24 months post-birth to become pregnant again. To echo a few PPs--do the spacing that works for you.

You win. Thank you for this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be quite clear, the WHO recommendation that you wait 2 years after birth to conceive (meaning your kid would be at least 2 yrs 9 mo when DC2 is born) is NOT due to a finding that waiting 24 months is better than waiting 18 months for either mother or child. It appears to be based on the facts that (1) UNICEF recommends breastfeeding your child for two years (which may be more or less appropriate in any given country/situation); and (2) telling people to wait two years is an easy benchmark. It did not make any definitive findings about "residual" risks associated with conceiving 18-27 months after birth. In fact, the report suggests that the lowest risk is to have your child 18-36 months after birth.

Source: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69855/1/WHO_RHR_07.1_eng.pdf

I don't mean to suggest people should take this report as gospel. Just don't feel that you are somehow endangering your baby if you don't wait until exactly 24 months post-birth to become pregnant again. To echo a few PPs--do the spacing that works for you.

You win. Thank you for this

+1. Really appreciate the reference and explanation here, PP. Anecdotally, I'm 19 months PP and I definitely feel a difference between now and 12 months PP. In the last 6 months, my hormones feel back to normal, my weight and metabolism have stabilized, and I can tell I'm regularly ovulating again (have a Mirena and haven't 100% weaned, so that impacts ovulation too). I actually find the 2.5 year gap more common in my young professional DC circle than 2 years. Most of my mom friends were planning on 2 years, but then just weren't ready at 12 months. They were mostly early to mid 30's with their first, so less "every month counts" pressure I think.

Here's a quote from the article that PP summarized, for anyone who doesn't want to click the link:

Birth-to-pregnancy intervals of around 18 months or shorter are associated with elevated risk of infant, neonatal and perinatal mortality, low birth weight, small size for gestational age, and pre-term delivery. Some “residual” elevated risk might be associated with the interval 18–27 months, but interpretation of the degree of this risk depended on the specific analytical techniques used in a meta-analysis. Otherwise, the evidence to discriminate within the interval of 18–27 months was limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine are 2y9mo apart, so not exactly 2 years, but I know many, many moms who time it to almost the day exactly so that they are 2 years apart. I think it's just easier. Play well together, a little space in timing college costs, etc. Plus, if you are only having 2 or 3 kids, you get done with the pregnancy/baby stage very quickly that way.

Also, here we're usually all starting later. If we all had our first at 20, then we might space them out a bit more.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

I have a law degree and am a practicing lawyer. Ivy-educated. First kid at 29, third (and last) at 33. Sorry to disappoint.

Being so well educated, seems like you would have known it's not healthy to have kids so close together.

...and you should know it's not healthy to have a first pregnancy at 38, right?

Of course. Who said anything about 38? That comment seems out of nowhere - what does spacing kids in a healthier way have to do with having a first kid at 38? Random.

I had my first pregnancy at 38. What exactly was unhealthy about it? Do tell me.

Higher risks for poor outcomes for mother and baby.

And yet we both turned out fine. Just because there's a chance of something bad happening doesn't mean it's unhealthy to do it.

I'm glad you got lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

I have a law degree and am a practicing lawyer. Ivy-educated. First kid at 29, third (and last) at 33. Sorry to disappoint.

Being so well educated, seems like you would have known it's not healthy to have kids so close together.

...and you should know it's not healthy to have a first pregnancy at 38, right?

Of course. Who said anything about 38? That comment seems out of nowhere - what does spacing kids in a healthier way have to do with having a first kid at 38? Random.

I had my first pregnancy at 38. What exactly was unhealthy about it? Do tell me.

Higher risks for poor outcomes for mother and baby.

And yet we both turned out fine. Just because there's a chance of something bad happening doesn't mean it's unhealthy to do it.

I'm glad you got lucky.

Got lucky? 38 isn't even old anymore. The genetic risks aren't that high, and most docs treat 38-year-old moms exactly the same as 25-year-old moms. But why would a first pregnancy at 38 be more of a problem than a 3rd or 4th?

BTW, most pregnancies that make it to or near term, by a huge factor, are normal and healthy in every age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

Oh, you guys are such insufferable snobs. I have an Ivy League degree, a MA, a career I love - and had my first baby at 29. I know there are others like me out there.

I know, I gotta get out of this thread! Ivy League degree and JD and first kid at 27 here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure. My kids are 4 years apart, though. The bigger age gap is awesome for us. I've gotten to really enjoy/focus on each one''s babyhood, and when I get babied-out with the little one, I can spend big-kid time with the big one.

I had the first at 33 and second at 37, so I had age somewhat on my side...I didn't feel desperate to have the second. Also, I wasn't sure I wanted a second for a long time...not until after the first turned 3.

I would have felt so old having my first kid at 33.

Is your peer group fairly uneducated? Not one of my friends had a baby before 30 due to advanced degrees and careers.

+1.

I have a law degree and am a practicing lawyer. Ivy-educated. First kid at 29, third (and last) at 33. Sorry to disappoint.

Being so well educated, seems like you would have known it's not healthy to have kids so close together.

...and you should know it's not healthy to have a first pregnancy at 38, right?

Of course. Who said anything about 38? That comment seems out of nowhere - what does spacing kids in a healthier way have to do with having a first kid at 38? Random.

I had my first pregnancy at 38. What exactly was unhealthy about it? Do tell me.

Higher risks for poor outcomes for mother and baby.

And yet we both turned out fine. Just because there's a chance of something bad happening doesn't mean it's unhealthy to do it.

I'm glad you got lucky.

Got lucky? 38 isn't even old anymore. The genetic risks aren't that high, and most docs treat 38-year-old moms exactly the same as 25-year-old moms. But why would a first pregnancy at 38 be more of a problem than a 3rd or 4th?

BTW, most pregnancies that make it to or near term, by a huge factor, are normal and healthy in every age group.

The point is that making it to near or full term is a much riskier and much more uncertain endeavor at 38 than at younger ages. You are significantly more likely to have complications, chromosomal issues, etc at older ages. 38 is not young, sorry friend.