I have a question for all the mom's out there. I know not all of you are moms, but feel free to have an opinion. In the interest of planning ahead I'm trying to figure out this whole having a second kid business. I know that it's a personal choice and I'll probably know when it's the right time, I just wanted to hear what you guys think. So, as far as spacing goes, do you think it's better to have them close together, or spread them out a bit? Part of me wants to just have them all close together and get it over with, but another part of me just isn't ready to do this all over again anytime soon. I think it would be nice for Mitchell to have someone to play with, but I guess that's not really a reason to have a kid. Just curious! Let me know what your vast experience tells you!
7 comments:
Do I really need to comment here? You already know this is what I think, but just a reminder of a few things:
1. You will lose your mind if you have them closer than 2 years apart. Period.
2. Remember that boys potty train a little bit later...
3. If I could go back and do one thing over, it would be to wait longer between Grace and Caroline. Yes they play great now, but that first year was H-E-double hockey sticks. Doubling kids does not double the work- it grows exponentially. Your "me" time disappears completely. Your "wife" time is almost non-existent. I would go closer to 3 years rather than 2. They will still totally play together and be close, but have 2 years apart in school at least. (Even my girls will be 2 yrs. apart-that's important I think.) This is the hardest gap though, because your first kid starts to become a toddler and you feel like they are SO old. But they're not. And dealing with 2 year old and a new baby is not for the faint of heart. Especially if you don't have the most champion of baby sleepers. (Which you don't really know until they're born.) I cannot reiterate enough...make it easier on yourself. It's still going to be rough at 3 years apart!!! Every time you start to feel baby hungry, imagine lifting Mitchell into a carseat with a big pregnant belly...or cleaning up his vomit, with a big pregnant belly...or a million other things that you have yet to experience once they hit nursery age...with the addition of a big, pregnant belly. The busyness, that tantrums, the messy eating...All of that is so much worse with a big pregnant belly. Plus, for my last bit of advice, DON'T BE 9 MONTHS PREGNANT IN AUGUST. Whatever else you do. Wow. I do ramble on. Well, that's my two cents. As if you didn't know. But you asked for it...
And one more thing....Keep in mind that just because you weren't sick with your first one, that you won't be with subsequent pregnancies. Imagine how much fun it is to get meals for a screaming toddler while you dry heave...such was my life. Choose wisely my friend. (Nat was even the sickest with her 3rd!)
i'm never having children...
Well, I have no mommy experience, but growing up in a large family with various age differences, these are my thoughts: Birth years may make this easier-- me 1981, sister in '83, brother in '84, sister 2 in '87, sister 3 in '89 and sister 4 in '96. Three of us were born within three years; I turned 3 two weeks before my brother was born. The three of us were and are very close because we were all interested in the same things at pretty much the same time. My mom probably did go crazy, but I was too young to pay attention to that and she's now recovered relatively well. Anyway, sisters 2 and 3 were best friends and bitter enemies growing up (don't most of us dislike our sisters when we're 17?), but for the most part were just as close as the three of us born really close together. As kids, the problem came with the larger gap between brother and sister 2. The "olders" were a clique that ganged up on the "youngers." So really I think it was the consistency that mattered. My nieces and nephews are all about 2 years apart and they play well together and are well-adjusted kids. As for the seven year gap between sisters 4 and 5, there's no problem because we were basically all parents for her and she's probably the most universally loved and adored, so if you have a caboose 15 years from now, don't be too worried. :)
However, I have absolutely no actual experience with all this stuff, so feel free to discount all my ramblings.
PS: Thanks for the card and I hope you celebrated my birthday with a few presents of your own! :)
Well, speaking from my own experience, it was nice to have the kids fairly close in age because you got all the nose and bottom wiping over at the same time - almost anyway. It was pretty crazy when you guys were baby and toddler ages, but it's nice later on to have your kids be friends and similar in ages. I would push for the 2 or 2 1/2 year gap between kids - think of how old you want to be when you're an empty nester and grandmother. You want to be young enough still to enjoy life when your kids are gone. I was thinking the other day that I could be a great-grandmother at the age of 68 or 69 - depending on how soon Mitchell marries. That seems pretty young to be a great-grandmother - so hopefully I would have some life still in me by then!
i wish i didnt wait as long to have the second kid. but then again we tried for 6 months, so even if i got pregnant 6 months earlier, it still would have been somewhat nice. there are pros and cons to both sides, though.
Post a Comment