Husband Wants Another Baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s best to wait much longer if you want to give your second child the best chance at being healthy. I guess you aren’t nursing but even then, your body needs to recover just from the pregnancy.

OP here. I am breastfeeding but I fail to see why what even matters?

Breastfeeding is nature’s birth control. It’s very unlikely that you even have a period at 6 months.

I breast fed each of my two kids until just over a year. I was in my early 30’s and we didn’t even bother with birth control until 9 months - and that’s because I was paranoid. I got my period shortly after weaning each kid - around 13 or 14 months postpartum.

It’s six months not nine and must be extremely dedicated.

Ever heard of Irish twins?.....

Yes, I always thought that happened to people who formula fed.

I didn’t get a period until after a year both pregnancies and I probably could have waited until then to start birth control. I don’t know anyone who breastfed and got pregnant the first year. It seems really rare. Considering OP WANTS to get pregnant right away, she should consider that breastfeeding will likely reduce already declining fertility.

She should WANT to do whatever is best for the health of her current child and any future children. Which is to breastfeed and then to wait for her body to build up reserves again to create another person.

However, I'm pretty sure the OP is a troll anyway. I guess the thread wasn't getting enough attention so she had to throw in sleep training.

OP here. I'm not a troll. I brought up sleep trying because of the multiple comments about lack of sleep with a second child. We have not had to sleep train our baby, but we are huge proponents of sleep training and schedules. We also have family and can hire childcare. I do want to wait until a year to try because I think it's better for a healthier pregnancy.

This thread has had plenty of responses, but I think most are not real hand accounts like I expected. I haven't been able thread through all of them all.

Hey OP. I just had my third. I have a 4, 2 and 0 year old! I still have 2-3 hours to myself at night and my husband and I have a fantastic relationship and we have a date night every other week.

The date night thing is a financial thing not a kid thing. If you're comfortable leaving your baby for a date night when they're little (and I'm a huge advocate of that!) then continuing that with two children is nothing but a financial decision.

The 2-3 hours to myself comes from keeping to a very rigorous sleep schedule and putting children on a pretty hard core schedule. We will make exceptions for special events but my kids are on a timer, they wake and sleep the same time basically everyday. And we stuck with bedtime routines even through the tantrum weeks. Our children have not ever slept in our bed (other than one or two really sick nights or bad nightmares, very special occasions).

Its doable...it just has to be what you're prioritizing. And I don't mean that as a dig towards other people with different high priorities. Just saying, as someone with similar priorities it can be done.

This this this this.

The families who don’t do date nights and have kids who don’t sleep simply don’t prioritize these things. Or they can’t afford sitters.

Putting your kids on a schedule is HUGE. All the kids I know who don’t sleep well have never been on a schedule. Also you are fine with sleep training.

Sounds like you’ll be fine with a second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Hey OP. I just had my third. I have a 4, 2 and 0 year old! I still have 2-3 hours to myself at night and my husband and I have a fantastic relationship and we have a date night every other week.

The date night thing is a financial thing not a kid thing. If you're comfortable leaving your baby for a date night when they're little (and I'm a huge advocate of that!) then continuing that with two children is nothing but a financial decision.

The 2-3 hours to myself comes from keeping to a very rigorous sleep schedule and putting children on a pretty hard core schedule. We will make exceptions for special events but my kids are on a timer, they wake and sleep the same time basically everyday. And we stuck with bedtime routines even through the tantrum weeks. Our children have not ever slept in our bed (other than one or two really sick nights or bad nightmares, very special occasions).

Its doable...it just has to be what you're prioritizing. And I don't mean that as a dig towards other people with different high priorities. Just saying, as someone with similar priorities it can be done.

I don't believe you that your newborn is on a timer and wakes up and sleeps the same time everyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hey OP. I just had my third. I have a 4, 2 and 0 year old! I still have 2-3 hours to myself at night and my husband and I have a fantastic relationship and we have a date night every other week.

The date night thing is a financial thing not a kid thing. If you're comfortable leaving your baby for a date night when they're little (and I'm a huge advocate of that!) then continuing that with two children is nothing but a financial decision.

The 2-3 hours to myself comes from keeping to a very rigorous sleep schedule and putting children on a pretty hard core schedule. We will make exceptions for special events but my kids are on a timer, they wake and sleep the same time basically everyday. And we stuck with bedtime routines even through the tantrum weeks. Our children have not ever slept in our bed (other than one or two really sick nights or bad nightmares, very special occasions).

Its doable...it just has to be what you're prioritizing. And I don't mean that as a dig towards other people with different high priorities. Just saying, as someone with similar priorities it can be done.

I don't believe you that your newborn is on a timer and wakes up and sleeps the same time everyday.

She is not on a timer yet and is not on a schedule yet. Getting there though at 8 weeks! Will certainly be there before she's 1. Probably 80% there at 6 months and basically on schedule by 10 months.

She is on enough of a timer that she goes down for the night between 8 and 9, gets a dream feed at 12 and then wakes up once or twice a night. And is up between 8-9 am. Her daytime schedule is way more up in the air but we're moving her towards a schedule by keeping her up to edge her towards a 10ish/2ish/5ish nap schedule.

It's our number one priority from the moment we get a baby home because neither DH or I do well at all with very little sleep. Basically every decision we make for the first few months is about minimizing sleep issues.

[Anonymous]

People who keep saying “Give your child a sibling - it’s the best thing to do so they won’t be alone later in life” clearly do not have issues in their extended families.

My brother has descended into mental illnesses in the past few years, abandoned his wife and teenage son, and had estranged himself from me and my parents.

There is no guarantee that you will like your adult sibling, let alone that they will even be alive to support you in adulthood. Have a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th...) if that’s what you - as the adult parents - believe is best for your family and it makes you happy.

But this idea that you MUST have a 2nd to give your 1st child and sibling is just so disconnected from the messy reality that is familial relations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who keep saying “Give your child a sibling - it’s the best thing to do so they won’t be alone later in life” clearly do not have issues in their extended families.

My brother has descended into mental illnesses in the past few years, abandoned his wife and teenage son, and had estranged himself from me and my parents.

There is no guarantee that you will like your adult sibling, let alone that they will even be alive to support you in adulthood. Have a 2nd (or 3rd or 4th...) if that’s what you - as the adult parents - believe is best for your family and it makes you happy.

But this idea that you MUST have a 2nd to give your 1st child and sibling is just so disconnected from the messy reality that is familial relations.

Yes if you as a parent want another baby and to raise another child then have another kid (or more). But to have a child for the first child is literally crazy unless you have never had any friends and heard sibling horror stories.

About half of the friends I have with siblings have either nonexistent or terrible relationships with their siblings. Many live in another country or on the other coast. There truly has been NO benefit to them of having a sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s best to wait much longer if you want to give your second child the best chance at being healthy. I guess you aren’t nursing but even then, your body needs to recover just from the pregnancy.

OP here. I am breastfeeding but I fail to see why what even matters?

Breastfeeding is nature’s birth control. It’s very unlikely that you even have a period at 6 months.

I breast fed each of my two kids until just over a year. I was in my early 30’s and we didn’t even bother with birth control until 9 months - and that’s because I was paranoid. I got my period shortly after weaning each kid - around 13 or 14 months postpartum.

and this, ladies and gentlemen, is how Irish Twins happen.

Yup. I posted upthread about having kids 15 months apart. I vividly remember debating with myself if I should stop breastfeeding my infant because I was tired in my first trimester of pregnancy with my 2nd. Unless you don’t care if it happens, use birth control.

[Anonymous]

Putting it off seems irresponsible to me. First off, health risks to mom and baby, second, the advanced age of the parents means time is of the essence. Getting pregnant doesn’t get easier as time goes by after 40, but the risks compound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have several friends who have 2 easy babies, so it absolutely can happen. I think some people just have laid back personalities and make laid back kids. That said, I would wait until a year because 6 month olds are pretty easy (if they sleep well) and misleading as to the energy required once they get mobile.

If you’re breastfeeding, your period may not yet have returned, and so you are less likely to get pregnant until you wean. But odds go up if your baby is not breastfeeding overnight.

OP here. I am breastfeeding but he is combo fed. He sleeps from 8-7 and eats 5 times a day. I'm not really that concerned if the second child will be easy. I think any child can be easy at one stage, and then hard the next stage. I have heard that laid back parents result in laid back babies, and high strung parents result in high strung babies.

OP sounds like a troll. No 4 month old sleeps 11 hours a night and only eats 5 times a day with breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Parent of 18 month apart kids. It’s tough for about two-three years after birth; once they hit elementary it gets much much easier to manage. Now that mine are middles, they help with my youngest (she is 2) and pinch hit for each other with chores.

It can be as easy or as hard as you make it. I concur with everyone that speaks about strict sleep schedules, organized home, and being a basically good manager (despite your husbands involvement). Expect to do most of the work yourself. Join Facebook groups and get ideas for life hacking multiples. It helps so incredibly much.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you can, give your child a sibling. That's the best thing you can do for your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have several friends who have 2 easy babies, so it absolutely can happen. I think some people just have laid back personalities and make laid back kids. That said, I would wait until a year because 6 month olds are pretty easy (if they sleep well) and misleading as to the energy required once they get mobile.

If you’re breastfeeding, your period may not yet have returned, and so you are less likely to get pregnant until you wean. But odds go up if your baby is not breastfeeding overnight.

OP here. I am breastfeeding but he is combo fed. He sleeps from 8-7 and eats 5 times a day. I'm not really that concerned if the second child will be easy. I think any child can be easy at one stage, and then hard the next stage. I have heard that laid back parents result in laid back babies, and high strung parents result in high strung babies.

OP sounds like a troll. No 4 month old sleeps 11 hours a night and only eats 5 times a day with breastfeeding.

If you’re a good parent and put your kid on a schedule, they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s best to wait much longer if you want to give your second child the best chance at being healthy. I guess you aren’t nursing but even then, your body needs to recover just from the pregnancy.

OP here. I am breastfeeding but I fail to see why what even matters?

Breastfeeding is nature’s birth control. It’s very unlikely that you even have a period at 6 months.

I breast fed each of my two kids until just over a year. I was in my early 30’s and we didn’t even bother with birth control until 9 months - and that’s because I was paranoid. I got my period shortly after weaning each kid - around 13 or 14 months postpartum.

It’s six months not nine and must be extremely dedicated.

Ever heard of Irish twins?.....

Yes, I always thought that happened to people who formula fed.

I didn’t get a period until after a year both pregnancies and I probably could have waited until then to start birth control. I don’t know anyone who breastfed and got pregnant the first year. It seems really rare. Considering OP WANTS to get pregnant right away, she should consider that breastfeeding will likely reduce already declining fertility.

It's not rare.

-Mom of kids 17 months apart

[Anonymous]

We had ours 20 months apart. Probably incredibly inefficient but DW and I always got up together for every feeding. I would change the baby, DW would feed and then I would walk/rock the baby back to sleep. We also did this with the second which probably made things much harder than they needed to be so I'd consider more of a divide and conquer approach.

The second is harder regardless of spacing because you can't really take turns with the baby the same way you could with just one because the other is wrangling the toddler.

Older DD was really excited about the baby so we got lucky in that regard. Even now that the baby is 1 older DD still gets excited playing with her although no guarantees you will get this result.

[Anonymous]

OP I had twins at 44. About a year in I had the urge for another baby. WHAT WAS I THINKING? Kids in your 40s is very hard. You could easily be 1 and done. It gets harder as you get older. And I have easy DCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can, give your child a sibling. That's the best thing you can do for your child.

+1000
It sounds like something those Quiverful types would say.