Without reading a single response- we started at 33/34 and possibly wanted 3 or more kids, so we started the 1st 2 close together just in case- being pregnant at and after 40 just wasn't for me, but I think its great when people have their families whenever they want- I just know myself.

Cut to 2 kids 2 years apart that are crazy active and high energy toddlers.......we are probably done. If we had known I would have gone an extra year 3 years seems to be a really glorious spacing for those I have seen around me. If nothing else you are at least CLOSE to done with diapers for a 3 year old, or already done- doing 2 sets SUCKS

Most of my friends who got married young-ish and started having kids within a few years have a 3 year age gap. So like, married at 25, kids at 28 and 31, and maybe a third at 34 if they decide to go for a third. The 2 year age difference seems to be more popular for people who started having kids in their early to mid 30s when you feel like you have less time.

As an adult older millennial, most of my friends growing up had siblings 3+ years apart too, unless they were in a big family of 4+ or had older parents (like 40+ at conception) then they were closer together. The fact that people now strive for 2 under 2 is vaguely horrifying to my mom and most women her age in the baby boomer generation. She remembered my aunt - her older sister - having kids 14 months apart, and then a third a week before the oldest turned 4. And all before she turned 30. Then they started using birth control!

Kids after 35 was extremely common throughout all of human history except maybe the last 40-50 years. When there's no birth control available and little understanding of when women are fertile in order to practice timed inter course, that's what happens!

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:

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.

I'm not saying many people don't have healthy pregnancies at that age, but you're delusional (and ptently wrong) if you think the above is teue.

I'm the PP who said I'd had my first at 38 (the person quoted immediately above is someone else) and I am well aware the risks increase with age. What I take issue with is a PP's assertion that it's "unhealthy" to have your first pregnancy at 38. There is indeed a higher risk, but that doesn't make it unhealthy, or even objectively risky.

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.

Why the ugly, condescending "honey?" PP was just sharing what her doctor told her, which is in accordance to current obstetric recommendations.

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?

Abstain obviously

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.

Induction protocol would also be different (assuming your OB follows ACOG guidance) should that be an issue.

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.

The 3-4 year gap between each kid is very popular among affluent families, who usually have the resources for one parent to be home or scale back at work for longer periods of time.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird, but the more affluent families I know tend to have larger spacing between their kids (or at least have one large-ish gap), while the middle class and lower tend to have them very close together. I have no idea why that is the case.

I have both a small and large gap, and I love both for different reasons. Oddly, the two kids who are very close in age are not close at all (personality clashes), while those farther apart are best friends.

I've observed the opposite. The affluent families have an older working mom who wants to pop out the kids relatively quickly before the biological clock gets too threatening, whereas some of the poorer families I know start having kids younger, but with longer spacing.

Same, have definitely seen the exact opposite. The affluent families have multiple kids, closer in age

Yeah, I didn't mean super far apart, like having a kid at 20 and then a couple more at 32 or something, I just meant more like 2-4 years apart, not "two under two" etc. which I see among the less affluent.

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.

I'm not saying many people don't have healthy pregnancies at that age, but you're delusional (and ptently wrong) if you think the above is teue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird, but the more affluent families I know tend to have larger spacing between their kids (or at least have one large-ish gap), while the middle class and lower tend to have them very close together. I have no idea why that is the case.

I have both a small and large gap, and I love both for different reasons. Oddly, the two kids who are very close in age are not close at all (personality clashes), while those farther apart are best friends.

I've observed the opposite. The affluent families have an older working mom who wants to pop out the kids relatively quickly before the biological clock gets too threatening, whereas some of the poorer families I know start having kids younger, but with longer spacing.

Same, have definitely seen the exact opposite. The affluent families have multiple kids, closer in age

Anonymous wrote:It's weird, but the more affluent families I know tend to have larger spacing between their kids (or at least have one large-ish gap), while the middle class and lower tend to have them very close together. I have no idea why that is the case.

I have both a small and large gap, and I love both for different reasons. Oddly, the two kids who are very close in age are not close at all (personality clashes), while those farther apart are best friends.

Weird, those I know who are less affluent tend to have larger gaps, like had a few kids when they were 19-25 and one or two more later in their 30s with a different partner.

Those who are more affluent and in stable partnerships/married tend to have kids 2-3 years apart.

Anonymous wrote:It's weird, but the more affluent families I know tend to have larger spacing between their kids (or at least have one large-ish gap), while the middle class and lower tend to have them very close together. I have no idea why that is the case.

I have both a small and large gap, and I love both for different reasons. Oddly, the two kids who are very close in age are not close at all (personality clashes), while those farther apart are best friends.

I've observed the opposite. The affluent families have an older working mom who wants to pop out the kids relatively quickly before the biological clock gets too threatening, whereas some of the poorer families I know start having kids younger, but with longer spacing.

It's weird, but the more affluent families I know tend to have larger spacing between their kids (or at least have one large-ish gap), while the middle class and lower tend to have them very close together. I have no idea why that is the case.

I have both a small and large gap, and I love both for different reasons. Oddly, the two kids who are very close in age are not close at all (personality clashes), while those farther apart are best friends.