I think it's all a matter of preferance.
Not that this should be your final decision maker, but I think you should take into account:
1) whether or not you work full time out of the home - or work full time in the home (as stay-at-home moms work just as hard as those of us who put in a 40 hour week outside the home).
2) Your financial situation.
3) Your apartment or home / how much space you actually have.
4) Your tollerance level (i.e. how much patience do you have).
I have 4 children. I had my first son when I was 18. I married his father (We are still married 13 years later) - We both knew that we weren't mature enough to handle another child - plus I wanted to take part time college classes .... So - there are 6 years between my oldest son and my dauther.... But then - oops - along came my Nicholas (there are only 15 months between my oldest daughter and my youngest son) --- then, I waited 3 years to have Zoe.
Honestly - it wasn't so much the age difference that seemed to drive me crazy - it was the transition from 2 children to 3 children - when I went from 3-4 it didn't seem to bother me so much.... I'm not sure if that's because my 2nd and 3rd child were only 15 months apart or what?
It is really hard for my oldest son because he has 3 younger siblings who are considerably younger than him - --- it's hard to find things to do that keep all of their interests at the same time.
I really think the easiest transition with respect to age was the 2 children I had 15 months apart.... It was almost like having twins.... They basically share the same interests - and are close enough to the same age, they enjoy playing with each other.
My last child came 3 years later - that was a good time spread too - because the others were potty trained and basically self reliant (especially now - my daughter is 2 and the others are 5,6 and 12).
I think if I had it to do over again, I would like to have each of them 2.5 - 3 years apart ... 6 years was too long to wait, but 15 months was almost too soon. However, like I said, I think it's all a matter of preferance.
2006-06-30 05:30:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Amy 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that 2 or 3 years is best - your body needs time to recover and heal after giving birth, so a year apart is too soon - it doesn't give your body time to recover. Plus, in the first year of life, the baby needs so much that you want to be able to do everything for your baby. If you wait to have the kids two or three years apart, then they are close enough to be playmates, but still allows you time to recover and to take care of a newborn. If you wait more then 3 years, then your children will be at very different stages and won't play together as much - plus, once you get out of the diapers and get into being able to sleep more, it is hard to go back
Good luck!
2006-06-30 05:21:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by pammy_6201 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have 3 children the first 2 are 2yrs and 8 mnths apart. Between the middle child and the baby they are 22 months apart. My first 2 would've been closer however it took me awhile to get pregnant. I think that having them close is better because they develop a close relationship and can relate to each other. I also think it's easier you already in the baby mind set. Okay it is a little more work because you have babies, but it is most definitly worth every minute. If it helps my mother in law had only 2 children they were 5 years apart she says that was great for her because it gave her time with her first one and then the second because my husband was in Kidergarten when his sister came. She likes one on one and handles that better. I think it depends on your personality and how kaotic you like things as for me and cousin of mine we enjoyed having 3 little ones in the matter of
4and1/2 years. Either way the oldest needs to feel love when the 2nd child comes and to be apart of the siblings life to create lasting relationships, something that will melt your heart in the future. For example: My oldest and middle child for the longest time had to sit next to each other in the car so they could hold hands. I hope this helps. May God help guide you no matter what your choice.
2006-06-30 05:32:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by TMW 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
the doctor would say to let your body recover for a least one year.
i spaced my children about 2.5 years apart... then i only had one in diapers at a time... but now that my children are older i WISH that i had spaced them just a little further apart... like 4 years. i think 4 years would have been better BECAUSE having to many in high school at once has caused a lot of issues about who's game can mom go to... my kids play different sports... no two likes the same thing... baseball, track, dance, cheer... i'm only one person and i can't be everywhere at once... even if i had only had 2 kids, i would want to be at every event! and, my kids that are close in age don't get along as well as the ones with a little time between them :) my oldest son LOVED being a big brother to our third son... but the second son can't get along with ANYONE other than his little sister... she's child #4. so, i wish i had asked for people's opinions before i chose 2.5 years as my spacing decision!
2006-06-30 05:25:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by JayneDoe 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say it depends on the situation. If you are limited in time and may have to go back to work I would recommend that you wait 3-4 years so that you will have time to nurture your child and then continue to work before having another. But, if you stay at home or you have help caring for a child one year would be fine. Also, with that your children will be closer to each other as they grow because they are similiar in age. I wouldn't wait too long though. I feel like 5 years is a bit long between.
2006-06-30 05:23:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by PuppyPower 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have to at least give it a year to give your body time to heal. The closer there ages the harder it will be when they are smaller and the easier when they are older. You will have to see how you can handle a baby and a 1 or 2 or 3 year old and you have to think about if you wait how hard it will be if they are really far apart in ages. This one is totally up to you and your husband. You are the one raising them.
2006-06-30 05:34:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by noseygirl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Guess it a personal preference. I have known women who wanted the children close in age, so, as soon as they had recovered from the First they Baked another Cake. BUT, some wanted time to handle one and waited a few years until it was fairly independent as far as eating and etc. then they had the second child and felt they could devote the necessary time for the Care.
2006-06-30 05:21:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Snaglefritz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think about 3 years apart. Just to give your body time to recuperate and so that the first child is almost old enough to help with the new baby. It is really hard to have 2 completely helpless babies to take care of. If one is about 3 you would not have to constantly be doing everything for it and you would even have a little help with the new baby.
2006-06-30 05:21:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by LuckyWife 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
My children are 18 months apart. My told me when I got pregnant with my daughter that was a good decision to have them close in age.
***I would say between 1 and 2 years apart.***
2006-06-30 05:34:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
My boys are almost exactly 2 yrs apart and get along great. Its nice to not have to be changing diapers for 5-6 years. I only had to do it for 4 yrs. It also gives them the advantage of going to the same school for a longer period of time and that makes it easier for them and for me.
2006-06-30 05:21:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by tw 2
·
0⤊
0⤋