What age(es) should chldren be spaced and birthed? For example, by 2, 3, 4 year

1. 79

   Treasuresofheavenposted 13 years ago

   What age(es) should chldren be spaced and birthed?  For example, by 2, 3, 4 years or what?

   replyreport
2. 61

   FatherFitzposted 13 years ago

   I think its all a matter of opinion, i would say 2 years apart and growing up they would be closer in age, but doctors recomend you give your body 18 months to recover before trying to get pregnant again.

   replyreport
3. 70

   NJ's Ponderingsposted 13 years ago

   Hmmm, I think two to three years. That allows time for mom to heal, baby and family to bond, and baby has a chance to become a bit independent. I had mine two years apart. I really liked that amount of space between kids. However, my grandma had hers 10 years apart. By the time the youngest was born, there was a 30-year gap. That's way too long. I think it ruins the connection between brother and sister when there is such a wide spacing between kids.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Lady_Eposted 13 years ago

   I think the woman's body needs to rest. 3 to 4 years is ideal. This is my personal opinion.
   
   Some women prefer to have their kids in a rush.. with a year b/w them.
   
   There is a lot to consider - money, are you career-minded, your body, your health.
   
   See you around. 

   replyreport
5. 84

   wychicposted 13 years ago

   I think it depends on the individuals and the family dynamics involved, and I also think that there are pros and cons to various spacings. For instance, children that are very close together in birth age will have a chance to get to know each other better as they're growing up, but there will be less individual attention for them and a LOT more work for parents, especially when they're tiny (i.e. if one is in diapers and another is in the midst of toilet training). With a few years apart, they probably won't enjoy the same games and may not be as close while they're growing up, but the older can be helpful with the younger and each child gets a lot more individual attention at a very young age (this is my family -- my son is five years old, and he's extremely helpful and devoted to his three-month-old sister). Finally, a huge age gap allows for maximum individual attention to the kids and a lot less work for parents in a lot of ways, as well as less of a financial burden all at once (i.e. school sports or college at different times), but the kids may not have a chance to get close at all, and each will essentially be an only child.
   
   For me, the 5-year gap is nice (I honestly didn't think I'd like it, but since my son's father and I divorced there really wasn't a question of closer spacing), but I would at least like to only have one child in diapers at a time. My sister currently has three kids, two in diapers and one starting to make progress on toilet training, and they just run her completely ragged and she doesn't really have a chance to slow down and just enjoy her time with them.

   replyreport
6. 70

   Bruce A. Beaudetposted 13 years ago

   You should go for twins, maybe triplets, about every 2 years.  You could have a pretty good baseball team in 10 years.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Y. Kajitakaposted 13 years ago

   I don't think there's any right answer; my niece and nephews are ages 13, 9 and 3.  There's quite a bit of difference there.  My middle nephew tends to aggravate his older sister a lot (tehe~) but they get along- and both of them love their baby brother sooo much!  In my experience personally, being closer in age is only a boon if you have each other to interact with a lot- my mom and her brother are two years apart, but since they lived out in the country away from everyone, they became each other's best friend.  On the other hand, my brother and sister (same age difference) fought like cats and dogs because they didn't have to get along.  I came along much later- 17 and 15-year age difference!- and they tend to dote on me.  My sister is me with a difference lifestyle, and my best friend- we jinx each other every fifth sentence when we're together~
   
   Personally, I've decided I want two sets of twins.  I'd like them to be two-three years apart, but whether or not that'll happen I have no idea.  ^^

   replyreport
8. 81

   peachpurpleposted 13 years ago

   6 years and above. So that the older child will be able to learn to love the younger sibling and learn what is being an older sis or bro responsibilities instead of fighting instead.

   replyreport
9. 59

   lorijoyposted 13 years ago

   My children were spaced at three years almost to the day. My daughter May 20 and my son May 15. This seems fine to me, they have been in the same school at the same time when they needed to be to show the other around. Even now, both my children will be attending WVU, my daughter is a will graduate next year and my son is going to be a freshman this fall. It all works out for the best however you space them.

   replyreport
10. 76

    workingmomwmposted 13 years ago

    Mine are almost exactly 2 years apart - Jan 23, 2009 and Jan 27, 2011, but this was not planned. I think 3-4 years between them would've been better for me (physically and mentally), but people I've talked to with siblings (I'm an only child) say that having them close together is better for them because they're closer. My husband and his brother are 4 years apart, and they're not close at all!

    replyreport
11. 68

    danthehandymanposted 13 years ago

    Here's a great site for info: http://www.suite101.com/content/spacing … ings-a5641
    I read somewhere that 4 year spacing creates jealously between the siblings. Three or less creates sibling bonds, and five or more creates parental-like bonds (the older feeling a responsibility for the younger).
    We had 4 children, all boys, in a 3-1/2 year period. The pros: The first decided he didn’t want to wear a diaper at 12 months, and earned the privilege without effort. He, in turn, helped his younger brothers who were all potty trained early. There was virtually no parental effort in this area. I don’t think that had anything to do with spacing, we were just lucky. The four boys were close all through young adulthood, playing and helping each other. The cons: Expensive. Not enough time for each child, but a lot of the time that would have been spent individually with mom and dad was either spent collectively or with their siblings, mitigating this con. The biggest con is the mother’s health. It is an unbelievable strain on a woman’s body to grow a baby and give birth, and some rest/rebuild time is necessary. My wife was in great shape and exercised both before and during the pregnancies. Nonetheless, she suffered from hormone imbalances and a thyroid condition following the fourth child, directly attributable to essentially being pregnant for 4-1/2 years straight. If we knew about this possible condition at the beginning, we would have tried for 2 or 3 year spacing.

    replyreport
12. 51

    raxxsachposted 13 years ago

    The ideal age difference should be at least 4 years.I am of the opinion we should have enough time to spend a child's birth and to create a bond with the kid.He /she has all the right to grab all the attention and affections from the parents.after a while when a child is a little responsible say when he is 4 then only we should plan a second child.By that time he will be longing for companionship and will be school going.Thus it will lead to no sibling rivalry but we can inculcate the values of responsibility and love between siblings...

    replyreport
13. 61

    Scott Mandrakeposted 13 years ago

    I see a lot of the same answer here. I see a lot of people trying to rationalize and justify. The simple answer to this question is, if this is a question that needs to be answered, you shouldn't be having children.
    That is not to say you shouldn't have concerns about finances or health, but in the grand scheme of things, life prevails and is not subject to ...  convenience.
    In most cases, love and life will only flourish in the face of hardship and in spite of it.  So, while having the typical mommy concerns, one should not approach childbirth like a jigsaw puzzle.
    
    So far, this philosophy  has served me and my 4.5 kids quite well

    replyreport
14. 0

    alpnakumariposted 13 years ago

    In my view i think  there must be atleast 4-5 years of gap between the 2 childs. So that a mother should get some physical and some mental rest. On the other way the 1st child will also become self dependent to do his own work like eating, going toilets by himself. And the most important to be prepared for his youngone to come and love him.

    replyreport
15. 67

    essiheartposted 13 years ago

    I would say anything less than 5 years... my sister and I were 14 years apart and that was way too large of a difference.

    replyreport
16. 70

    bryanpsposted 13 years ago

    I personally think, 2-3 years is good. You definitely should give some time for your body to rest and heal before deciding to have another kid. Personally, max is 4-5 years in between siblings.

    replyreport
17. 51

    AppleJacksposted 13 years ago

    A decade between each is perfect! Well at least it has been for me. Funny thing is... I didn't plan it that way. But if I could do it over again, (and had any control of the outcome) that's exactly how I would space them.
    
    I (we) have three girls 24, 14 & 4. My firm belief is that children are an heritage from the Lord, so in my case...they each arrived exactly at the right time. Plus we have built in babysitters.
    
    All three girls are unique but have great love for one another in common. Do they have their disagreements? Yes! But it is more easily worked out because of the age gap (maturity and experiences) between them. The interaction is great to watch, I can trust them to "really work it out".
    
    It's also a joy for me to be able to engage more fully (focused) on a one to one basis in their lives, without feeling pulled in too many directions.  I love being able to sing lullaby's to one, give teen advice to the other and go out to lunch with the oldest who by the way is now married.
    
    My husband and I have a very full life.  We love spending time with our girls and our son in law.  And having our girls10 years apart has really kept us young at heart. Will I have another in oh 5 more years to keep the decade pattern going? At age 47 now, 52 then... I think NOT! But then again it's not my plan.

    replyreport
18. 68

    manjubose5posted 13 years ago

    I think 3 to 4 years is ideal gap in between two sibs. By that time mother's body would get rest and internal organs will be healed up to welcome new one.
    
    Moreover, the elder one will be caring towards the younger one resulting a healthy bondage in between them.
    
    I personally think, this gap will help both mother and kids.

    replyreport
19. 68

    Terri Meredithposted 13 years ago

    My daughters were 20 months apart.  Then 7 years passed before giving birth to my son, to be followed by another son 26 months later.  It was like having two different families.  The girls were very close, like best friends with each other and shared a lot of the same activities.  They each tended to "parent" their little brothers with each of them being attached to a particular one.  The oldest daughter became attached to the oldest son, etc.  The boys were like indians, falling all over each other and wrestling and just plain being boys.  I'd have to say two years apart is a good length of time.  For both sets of kids, things worked out very well, and my daughters were always a very big help with their age difference.  To this day, the bonds remain between them all, just as they were when they were small.

    replyreport
20. 63

    RonPareposted 13 years ago

    I say 2, 4, 6. Two years gives each child some breathing room within his/her world. I think identity is important.

    replyreport
21. 60

    Dee aka Nonnaposted 13 years ago

    I think at least 2 years apart, but I think it depends, for the most part, on the parents and what they can reasonably handle...financially, emotionally and physically.  My kids were almost 10 years apart, not ideal nor planned, but it worked for me.

    replyreport
22. 79

    Treasuresofheavenposted 13 years ago

    Thanks so much for all of your responses, I really appreciate your answers, insight and candidness.  We would like to have control over this childbearing concern, but rarely does it work out that way.  Happy Hubbing!

    replyreport