Log In Sign Up

Intentionally getting pregnant, when you have a child under a year old.


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Closed Topic Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #22  
June 13th, 2010, 06:22 PM
IAmMomMomIAm
Guest
Posts: n/a
She most likely didn't intentionally conceive triplets so closely spaced with her first. She was probably going for one or maybe twins. I don't think she could have really predicted triplets when she decided to go on the fertility drugs and get pregnant again.

I was on bed rest this time around, and it's not something you can predict, and I don't think the possibility of a random complication is reason enough to not plan your family the way you want it. I couldn't lift my children without essentially risking my life, though the pregnancy was just fine so long as I didn't actually kill myself.

My children are closely spaced (a 19 month gap, and a 14 month gap), and as far as I can tell they're just fine. *shrug* DD doesn't have any kind of calcium deficiency, and she wasn't underweight at birth, or anything along those lines. So far so good with this baby as well, though I guess some things are yet to be determined. The only issue is what happened to me during the pregnancy, which probably would have happened no matter how I spaced them. I'm not saying that my anecdotal evidence is enough to refute Lash's information; I'm just throwing it out there.

But the argument about kids not getting enough attention doesn't work for me. They may not get the attention immediately when they want it, but they certainly get enough of it.

I think there are very few reasons to wait between children if you'd rather squish them all together. The calcium argument is one, and there ARE other health concerns (I believe pre-e, gestational diabetes, anemia, etc).
  #23  
June 13th, 2010, 06:25 PM
KrazE's Avatar ShutTheFrontDoor
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lash View Post
The only case scientifically I have to make in waiting between babies is the depletion in calcium in the mother. I often use this very stat and quote in this debate time and time again
I will be the statistical anomaly

My first pregnancy was the killer with GD, pre-eclampsia & bed rest until I was induced a week early. I had ZERO health issues with each pregnancy after and the labours and birth were better & better.
Baby number two - I got pregnant for her when #1 was 3 months old.
Baby number three - there are 3 years between him & #2 but...
Baby number 4... there is 10 months, 19 days from birth to birth

No health issues, he was my 2nd heaviest baby (1 - 8lbs 2oz, 2 - 7lbs 12oz, 3 - 8 lbs 10.5oz, 4 - 8lbs 5oz)
He's never even had antibiotics as he hasn't been sick with anything that ever required it (no ear infections, strep throat etc etc), the most he's had is typical colds/flu every few years.

But having babies close together doesn't mean you are ignoring the first child(ren), it's simply about managing your time in a way that allows for you to give your time (as much as possible) to each child. Setting aside a time that is just theirs also helps, and you ensure that you make that time so they do not feel like they are loved any less than another.
I suppose I may not be explaining that very well, but as a Mom who had 4 babies before turning 27, it's just how I did things. It doesn't necessarily mean it will work for everyone, and granted, having triplets is certainly different from carrying one baby - but it's her body, her family and the choice of her & her husband; who are we to decide whether it's right or not.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~

  #24  
June 13th, 2010, 07:39 PM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lash View Post
The only case scientifically I have to make in waiting between babies is the depletion in calcium in the mother. I often use this very stat and quote in this debate time and time again

That 6 month mark that you bolded in your quote makes sense because if a mother EBF her child then really she should get at least 6 months of infertility anyway. (I know, it doesn't work in all cases - I think 98%) But, I did just want to point out that natural spacing of children does occur when mother's co-sleep, bf exclusively etc etc.
  #25  
June 13th, 2010, 07:54 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 131
More power to the moms who can do it! lol Personally I would find it very hard to give my infant adequate attention while being pregnant and tired and throwing up a lot. That's how my pregnacy was. I am hoping the next one will be easier! But for moms who decided to have a baby less than a year apart.. saying your kids are 10 to 12 months apart, weren't you tired of being pregnant? lol
__________________






  #26  
June 13th, 2010, 08:24 PM
HappyHippy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pavia, Italy
Posts: 5,959
I'm not a fan of closely spaced children. It's not healthy for mom or baby. It's best to wait atleast 18 months to become pregnant again. My kids are almost 3 years apart, Hunter was 3 months shy of 3 years when Liev was born. So far I haven't seen closely spaced kids to work out well for the parents. The people I knwo who have kids within 2 years from eachother struggle a lot and don't seem to enjoy motherhood. They complain all the time and tell me how bad of an idea it was. But to each their own. I think this decision shouldn't be taken lightly and they need to look at the health aspects of it for both mom and baby.
__________________
Mama to G, L & twins F & M
Started off 2013 homebirthing suprise twins Fia Celesta & Maddalena Isabella
  #27  
June 13th, 2010, 08:28 PM
zzz's Avatar
zzz zzz is offline
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,719
I think spacing of children isn't any of my business, it's up to the parents that are actually going to be raising the child. I'm sure for some it's a bad idea, but others it isn't. To each his own, I say.


Lisa
__________________


  #28  
June 13th, 2010, 08:36 PM
KrazE's Avatar ShutTheFrontDoor
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennTheMomma View Post
I'm not a fan of closely spaced children. It's not healthy for mom or baby. It's best to wait atleast 18 months to become pregnant again. My kids are almost 3 years apart, Hunter was 3 months shy of 3 years when Liev was born. So far I haven't seen closely spaced kids to work out well for the parents. The people I knwo who have kids within 2 years from eachother struggle a lot and don't seem to enjoy motherhood. They complain all the time and tell me how bad of an idea it was. But to each their own. I think this decision shouldn't be taken lightly and they need to look at the health aspects of it for both mom and baby.
While this might be how you feel, or how a study here or there might tout, it doesn't mean that's the case for every single woman.
I love that my kids are close in age, they get along as expected of course, but they look out for each other and they have the same circles of friends which they enjoy as well.
My two teens can talk about someone from school to each other and they know exactly what the other is talking about - even though my oldest is male in grade 10, and the 2nd teen is female in grade 9.
My last two babies are almost inseparable. They have the same group of friends (for the most part) but they also have friends that the other is familiar with, but not part of the group.

So that being said, it's too bad that the only people that you know with closely spaced children do nothing more than complain; I for one have enjoyed it and certainly am not going to be shoved under some general (and negative) view about having kids close together; you made your choice, and I respect that, but I also made my choice and expect that same treatment in return; please avoid the general blanket statements.
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~

  #29  
June 13th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Fan of learning
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 326
Send a message via Yahoo to One Frugal Mom
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennTheMomma View Post
I'm not a fan of closely spaced children. It's not healthy for mom or baby. It's best to wait atleast 18 months to become pregnant again. My kids are almost 3 years apart, Hunter was 3 months shy of 3 years when Liev was born. So far I haven't seen closely spaced kids to work out well for the parents. The people I knwo who have kids within 2 years from eachother struggle a lot and don't seem to enjoy motherhood. They complain all the time and tell me how bad of an idea it was. But to each their own. I think this decision shouldn't be taken lightly and they need to look at the health aspects of it for both mom and baby.
Everyone's experience is different. My kids are 22 months apart, and besides sometimes feeling as if I have twins instead of two singletons... no problems. My only regret is I don't have more!
  #30  
June 13th, 2010, 08:38 PM
Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by chlodoll View Post
Well her case is a bit extreme but I think generally it does not matter. I don't think kids need complete undivided attention, I think that they need to have their needs met and that can be done with other children involved. I think sometimes to much emphasis is put on how much attention kids need now.
I completely agree with this, as it pertains to the original post. There are countless factors that influence how much "undivided attention" a baby receives in its first year of life - the physical presence of both parents, whether one or both parents works outside the home, whether or not the child is in daycare, the presence of older siblings or other children, etc. Also, consider twin births. The idea that a newborn somehow deserves undivided attention for the first year of life really doesn't make sense to me.
__________________



  #31  
June 13th, 2010, 08:43 PM
HappyHippy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pavia, Italy
Posts: 5,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazE View Post
While this might be how you feel, or how a study here or there might tout, it doesn't mean that's the case for every single woman.
I love that my kids are close in age, they get along as expected of course, but they look out for each other and they have the same circles of friends which they enjoy as well.
My two teens can talk about someone from school to each other and they know exactly what the other is talking about - even though my oldest is male in grade 10, and the 2nd teen is female in grade 9.
My last two babies are almost inseparable. They have the same group of friends (for the most part) but they also have friends that the other is familiar with, but not part of the group.

So that being said, it's too bad that the only people that you know with closely spaced children do nothing more than complain; I for one have enjoyed it and certainly am not going to be shoved under some general (and negative) view about having kids close together; you made your choice, and I respect that, but I also made my choice and expect that same treatment in return; please avoid the general blanket statements.
I was more touching on the health aspects of children too close together. My sister and I are how you describe, but we're 3 years a part. Most of my friends had kids close together so their kids could be friends, but it seemed to backfire, because their kids don't like hanging out with eachother. I think it more has to do on the personality of the kids rather than their age.
__________________
Mama to G, L & twins F & M
Started off 2013 homebirthing suprise twins Fia Celesta & Maddalena Isabella
  #32  
June 13th, 2010, 08:54 PM
KrazE's Avatar ShutTheFrontDoor
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennTheMomma View Post
I was more touching on the health aspects of children too close together. My sister and I are how you describe, but we're 3 years a part. Most of my friends had kids close together so their kids could be friends, but it seemed to backfire, because their kids don't like hanging out with eachother. I think it more has to do on the personality of the kids rather than their age.
Unfortunately, having kids close so they 'can be friends' is (for many) setting an expectation that doesn't always happen.
In some cases, it takes time for them to develop a 'friendship' AND in my experience, they need to be treated as individuals and not 'forced' in to being something they may not initially want to be.

My kids all have vastly different personalities; and they even (and still sometimes do) go through that 'oh he breathed on/looked at/thought about me...MOMMY' phase. And there was even a time when the two youngest could fight over lint... but with time, and as they grow, they mature and do certain things less & less.

I really couldn't say what would or wouldn't work for other parents, but I do know what has worked for me.

I had my children closely spaced because I wanted to have them during my 'prime' child-bearing age and still be able to look towards a future that wasn't just about raising babies, but having a full time job, taking classes to learn things, being able to go pee without someone having a fight & calling my name before I was 40... you know, those sorts of things
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~

  #33  
June 13th, 2010, 08:59 PM
TheOtherMichelle's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa*G View Post
I think spacing of children isn't any of my business, it's up to the parents that are actually going to be raising the child. I'm sure for some it's a bad idea, but others it isn't. To each his own, I say.


Lisa
Ditto
__________________







  #34  
June 13th, 2010, 10:06 PM
mayandsofiasmommy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 12,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earth Child View Post
I was watching "baby story" the other day on TLC and a woman had tried to have a baby for a few years and had to turn to fertility drugs to get pregnant. She had a son and when he was 3 months old she intentionally went back on fertility drugs to get pregnant again. She ended up with triplets!

I know a lot of women who get pregnant accidentally shortly after the birth of a child. But IMO it's unfair to the child you already have to get pregnant with another child. The first child won't get the adequate attention he or she needs during their first year of life, and even after. I would freak out if I accidentally got pregnant after just having mine. I would feel sad because I want him to have my undecided attention.

So what do you think?
Nope, BS. This is like saying a mom of twins (or more) is irresponsible since each child will not get the attention he/she deserves. They do.

Now, would *I* intentionally do this? No way! Especially not with twins! But let me tell you, kids will be ok. They do not need your undivided attention all the time. I actually do not think that is healthy. Yes, they should get some one on one time, but having another kid so soon is fine, especially if you struggle with infertility!! When you deal with infertility, you don't know if you will ever get the chance to be a parent again (IF you get pregnant the first time), and if you are older, you do have to act quicker.
__________________

  #35  
June 13th, 2010, 10:07 PM
myblueyez's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,121
I say to each his own..
I personally don't have the patience to have 2 babies/toddlers at a time, but I know others who can handle it with no problem. My SIL has 2 girls 13 months apart, they are best friends...
My sis and I are 23 months apart but I am closer to my lil bro who is 7 years younger than me....

Now as for the case in the OP, like it was said earlier I think it may be a case of the unpredictability of fertility drugs.. There's no way to know she was going to get pregnant that soon, and no way to know that it would be triplets...
I don't know alot about using fertility treatments, but from what I've heard sometimes it can take several months or even years to work and that yes maybe the chances of multiples is higher, that doesn't mean it will always be multiples...
__________________
Killing Time - my blog

~~Thank you to Jaidynsmum for my awesome siggy!~~


  #36  
June 13th, 2010, 10:10 PM
mayandsofiasmommy's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 12,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keskes View Post
She most likely didn't intentionally conceive triplets so closely spaced with her first.
Nobody intentionally conceives triplets. There are so many health risks for both mom and babies.
__________________

  #37  
June 13th, 2010, 10:19 PM
IAmMomMomIAm
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by mayandsofiasmommy View Post
Nobody intentionally conceives triplets. There are so many health risks for both mom and babies.
Indeed, that's part of the reason I assume that wasn't her plan. She was on fertility drugs the first time and had ONE baby. I'm guessing, but I could be wrong, that she was going for one or maybe two more. The Goslins conceived twins, and then wanted a singleton. Things don't always work out like we plan them to, but once it's done it's done. She can't go back and decide to wait longer just because she NOW knows it wouldn't take long to conceive and there would be three of them.

I don't know much about fertility drugs and how hard they are on the body, so I can't really say anything about that particular choice, though.
  #38  
June 13th, 2010, 10:33 PM
MrsSarah1's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennTheMomma View Post
I'm not a fan of closely spaced children. It's not healthy for mom or baby. It's best to wait atleast 18 months to become pregnant again. My kids are almost 3 years apart, Hunter was 3 months shy of 3 years when Liev was born. So far I haven't seen closely spaced kids to work out well for the parents. The people I knwo who have kids within 2 years from eachother struggle a lot and don't seem to enjoy motherhood. They complain all the time and tell me how bad of an idea it was. But to each their own. I think this decision shouldn't be taken lightly and they need to look at the health aspects of it for both mom and baby.

I have a 8 month old baby and a 2 year old daughter, 18 months apart. Our marriage is not perfect, but I absolutely with every breath, heart beat, strand of hair and second of my life LIVE for my children. I love being a mother, love having them 18 months apart and I wouldn't want it any other way.

We actively TTC both of our daughters. We had our first daughter and when she was 9 months old, we hopped back onto the BBT/OPK train.

We had them close together for very specific reasons:

1) My older sister and I are 15 months apart and are best friends.

2) My MIL had DH, then used the IUD and never again went on to carry a pregnancy to term. She had at least a dozen miscarriages, and at least three late term miscarriages. DH grew up, essentially, alone.

I think motherhood in general is a struggle. Yes, of course, having an 8 month old and a two year old is hard. But that doesn't mean that I don't love it, or I don't regret it. My girls are loved, happy, healthy and enjoy life. I don't think that my one-on-one parenting devotion to them is essential in making them a good person. I think siblings are a huge HUGE asset to a life. Not only will the child have a partner in life, they will also have a family (DH has one surviving family member.. his grandma. Once she passes, he has no one. ), and will learn to live with someone else sharing toys, stories, tears and hugs. I don't think that having years of being an only child is a huge character shaper. What happens to the second child, who never has any "only child" time, are they doomed from the get-go? Or as stated, mothers of twins?

Personally, I think that 9 months is the best point to start TTC if you want closely spaced siblings. Following the "9 months to grow a baby, 9 months to return to normal" rule, you should be pretty much back to your old self by then. I think TTC at 3 months is a bit early for my taste. Also, a pretty high number of multiples are a result of fertility treatments so I think she should have been more aware of that, and thought "what if?" The same as TTC without medical assistance and having twins run in your family, or even considering that your baby may be severely disabled and require constant 24 hour care. I think those are huge "what if's" when TTC, and should be considered.

So while I don't quite agree with the timing due to the risks, I do think that closely spaced siblings is fantastic, and I love having my girls so close in age. We plan on waiting three years to TTC, then having the same age spacing between our last two children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keskes View Post
She can't go back and decide to wait longer just because she NOW knows it wouldn't take long to conceive and there would be three of them.
That as well. It took us three cycles to conceive our older daughter. We assumed it would take at least that long, if not longer. Nope. Three weeks later, BFP. I had just ordered a huge batch of OPK's and I got them in the mail the day of my BFP, lol.
__________________
A daughter is the happy memories of the past, the joyful moments of the
present, and the hope and promise of the future.
  #39  
June 13th, 2010, 11:26 PM
Tofu Bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't believe in "one-size-fits-all" statements when it comes to families; just because some may not be able to make it work with closely-spaced children does not make it the rule for all others. Shoot, if anything, I think some things would be easier: I just went through all of the library programs coming up for the summer... we can't register for any of them because my kids are in two separate age-groups (dd's age group requires the parent to be present, while ds' doesn't but they make an exception for special needs kids and would let me chaperone him) so neither can go unless I have a sitter for the other.
  #40  
June 13th, 2010, 11:44 PM
KimberlyD0
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are dangers to moms who have babies too closely together, its a health risk every moms should know about. They covered this on our prenatal classes too. Moms who have babies to close together have a higher risk of blood clots,. this happend to a friend of mine who is now on blood thiners for life. She has 3 children, each 16 months apart. Moms have even died because of this. It can also lead to vitamin and mineral deffisiancies in mom, like calsium, and iron. generally its a risk to moms more then babies because babies take it from the mom. Each pregnancy does stress the body, be it singleton or multiples.

I don't have the time to find the right sorces right now (it being 1:30am and way past my bedtime lol) but I can look tomorrow.

One of the reasons that its suggested to wait 2 years between prengancies is so the body can rebuild its reserves and nurtrients.

The risks are no astrinomical by any means, but they are there and women should know those risks.

If a mom then decides that she wants to have her children close together then thats her choice. Not one I would make, for the reasons above, because DD#1 was so colicy I nearly decided not to have more, and because I had a c-section and I knew the longer I waited between pregnancies the better chance I would have at a VBAC.

To me its questionable to take fertility drugs to get pregnant that quickly, especially if she was BF, but really what business is that of mine. Also if she was anything like us, 5 years to have our first, she probably didn't figure she would fall pregnant thats quickly. I know we expected it to take just as long, if not longer to have our second. Instead we got lucky and she was a hunnymoon baby (literally a month after the wedding LOL) we were not planning to TTC untill Jan 08
Closed Topic

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0