Why does everyone have their kids two years apart?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I had mine at 33 because I just wasn't ready at 29 but seriously people on this board need to get a grip. 29 is not a child-bride, teen mom situation! 29 is only "young" to those in 10 years older and beyond. Ask a 23 year old if 29 is "young"- hahaha.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I had mine at 33 because I just wasn't ready at 29 but seriously people on this board need to get a grip. 29 is not a child-bride, teen mom situation! 29 is only "young" to those in 10 years older and beyond. Ask a 23 year old if 29 is "young"- hahaha.

Already had my master's degree and was making $120k by age 27. That was the first year we visited a fertility doc due to male factor issues. Did IVF at age 29. It's really not that young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who do this have at least 2 or more of the following characteristics:

1. They have known from the start they want more than one kid
2. They want the baby stage over with as quickly as possible--they don't want to wait until kid #1 is so far removed from the baby stage that they feel like they are starting all over again with sleep deprivation, diapers, etc.
3. They get pregnant easily (i.e. can actually time these things).
4. They are older and feel a time pressure to have kids.
5. They found a nanny they loved for #1 and want to maximize her use for #2 as well.

At least this is what I've seen in my friends, neighbors & community.

Yes to this. For us it was 1, 3 & 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because newly 1 year olds are easy and so people think - wow time to have another! And it takes a few months to get pregnant, so you end up with kids 1 year 10 months to a shade under 2.5 years apart, haha.

+1.. I always think you get pregnant again before you realize your sweet one year old will be 2 when you have a new baby and into everything and competing for attention...ah ha! We did it twice, we are so dumb...
also, condensed because we are older, wanted that third one before the clock ran out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

Not the quoted PP, but no, it's not correct. The correct term is "Advanced Maternal Age." But please don't let that interfere with your internet moralizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people wean at 1 year and their cycle finally starts up again and they get pregnant.
It's not magic, just biology.

I agree! I have a 8, 6 and 4 year old and I did not plan it that way. in hindsight, their interests are the same from games, food, toys etc and they have lots of fun together. it has worked out great but it is certainly a lot of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It took us three years to have our first. I decided during all that that the "perfect time to have children" doesn't exist for us. So that threw any notion of "perfect spacing" out the window because I wasn't foolish enough to think I had control over that.

Not knowing how long it'd take we stopped preventing before our first turned a year old. I figured I'd much rather have two children, a bit closer together than I wanted, than risk not ever having a second at all. #2 was born when #1 was 26 months old. I mostly feel lucky our second didn't take years to conceive so we could skip all that stress.

Everything else is details.

This is a lot like my story. It took us years to conceive our first and I was told I have a lower ovarian reserve for my age. We started trying after our son was a year old because we anticipated a long journey. The second was conceived the first month we tried. They're closer than two years in age (21 months) but I'm so grateful I'm able to have the second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

Not the quoted PP, but no, it's not correct. The correct term is "Advanced Maternal Age." But please don't let that interfere with your internet moralizing.

Sheesh, this has really touched a nerve with the "advanced age" (is that better?) mothers!

[Anonymous]

They're not geriatric, they're of advanced age!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

Not the quoted PP, but no, it's not correct. The correct term is "Advanced Maternal Age." But please don't let that interfere with your internet moralizing.

Sheesh, this has really touched a nerve with the "advanced age" (is that better?) mothers!

NP but why do you care so much how old people are when they choose to have their kids? How does it affect you in any way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

Not the quoted PP, but no, it's not correct. The correct term is "Advanced Maternal Age." But please don't let that interfere with your internet moralizing.

Sheesh, this has really touched a nerve with the "advanced age" (is that better?) mothers!

NP but why do you care so much how old people are when they choose to have their kids? How does it affect you in any way?

NP I don't care when people have kids, but I do think the outrage around terms like geriatric and advanced age is hilarious in a kind of sad or desperate way.

[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:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

Not the quoted PP, but no, it's not correct. The correct term is "Advanced Maternal Age." But please don't let that interfere with your internet moralizing.

Sheesh, this has really touched a nerve with the "advanced age" (is that better?) mothers!

NP but why do you care so much how old people are when they choose to have their kids? How does it affect you in any way?

NP I don't care when people have kids, but I do think the outrage around terms like geriatric and advanced age is hilarious in a kind of sad or desperate way.

So you're ... throwing around "geriatric" and "advanced age" in this thread in order to cause "outrage?" Huh. That's ... not exactly behavior that I would be proud of but ok.

[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:Holy hell. Now we're saying 33 is old to have a first child?

NP here, I wouldn't say old but definitely not young.
That poster said she felt she has time on her side, I think that's crazy,

I think 33 is oldish to have a first child. I wouldn't want to wait that long. Obviously lots of women do and it often is fine, but I would feel old af having my first kid at that age.

It's often fine at 40 and 19, and many other ages too. In fact it's usually fine. Not everyone has the luxury of perfectly timing when they start their families. But I guess people like you will smugly look down their noses at anyone who made a different choice than you. What's it like to live with that level of insecurity on a regular basis?

+1

Anytime is a great time to have a healthy pregnancy, if it happens to work out that way.

I will be 35 this year, have an almost 2.5 year old, and didn't feel ready for another baby until just recently. I nervously scheduled a routine OB visit to see if I was "all systems go" for another pregnancy and was reassured that some of you call a "geriatric" pregnancy at 35/36 wouldn't be treated much differently than my pregnancy at age 31/32. My provider said one of the only major differences would be that insurance would cover cell-free DNA testing since I would be AMA and that extra screening/testing would be offered if any early testing was abnormal.

By "some of us" do you mean the medical/scientific community? Folks aren't just using that term to hurt your feelings, honey.

No, I meant the DCUM community full of supposed "experts" who throw around terms like "geriatric pregnancy." Like some other kind poster wrote in my defense, I was reiterating the information provided to me by my OB, who is up to date on current research and ACOG guidelines. I also am a healthcare provider who uses evidence-based practice and a reasoned, unemotional approach to decision-making in my work and personal decisions. You're a real peach, though!

FWIW, maybe you'd like to marinate on this. It's a few years old, but the information is worth considering: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Sorry I'm "throwing around" the term geriatric pregnancy correctly...?

Not the quoted PP, but no, it's not correct. The correct term is "Advanced Maternal Age." But please don't let that interfere with your internet moralizing.

Sheesh, this has really touched a nerve with the "advanced age" (is that better?) mothers!

NP but why do you care so much how old people are when they choose to have their kids? How does it affect you in any way?

NP I don't care when people have kids, but I do think the outrage around terms like geriatric and advanced age is hilarious in a kind of sad or desperate way.

So you're ... throwing around "geriatric" and "advanced age" in this thread in order to cause "outrage?" Huh. That's ... not exactly behavior that I would be proud of but ok.

Another NP here. I agree, this thread has been funny to scroll through. The hysterics around what language is or isn't ok as deemed by the older mom crowd makes for some good laughs. We get it, you're old but you don't want to be old.