How Close Should Siblings Be?

Posted on 01 19, 2007 under Master Debaters by wahoodad | Comments

sumo_kid_fightSo, you’ve had one kid and you want to give
your son or daughter a younger brother to whale on or a little sister to tease
(Hey, don’t look at me.  I didn’t make
the rules—that’s just what older siblings do.).   The OB has
deemed your wife’s body ready to make babies once again, but this time around
there’s the wild card of kid number one factored into the upcoming trials and
tribulations of pregnancy and a newborn.  
Granted, the choice of how soon your wife gets pregnant may not be up to
you; but, in a perfect world, how soon after the first do you want to have a
second?  Spit them out one after another,
or provide some buffer years between them?

There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument, so let’s hear ‘em. Which brings us to this week's questions:



Are you better off having
the second as soon as possible after the first; or should you space them out a
little?  If you come down on the side of
putting years between Kid 1 and Kid 2, how long should you wait?

{mosnooad} This is the latest installment in our Master Debaters Question of the Week
Series. There are some topics that seem to fall into the consensus category:
drunk driving is bad, guns kill people, Transformers are better than GoBots (to everyone alive save Redhawk!).
But that only covers less than 1% of the decisions you and your spouse make
towards the upbringing of your kids. The majority of issues tend to fall more
in the gray area.
Here at Noodad.com, we take pride in delivering important advice for dads. But
we realize that some of our advice is subjective. The collected readership
surely has things to add and unique perspectives to contribute.


So where do you weigh in?

 

 

 

 

Related Posts

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I say wait a few years. I\'d even go so far as to wait about four years, that way, you\'re not paying for college at the same time, they\'ll be at different grade levels so the teachers will forget about one hellion before it\'s sibling gets there, and you\'re not having to change diapers at double time. My mom had my sister and I 14 months apart-that means she got pregnant again when I was about five months old. There wasn\'t even time for the hemorrhoids to heal from the first baby before she got pregnant with the second.
    Also, and my boyfriend calls this the \"evil genius theory\", before too long, the older of the siblings can babysit the younger 1 or 2. FREE BABYSITTING! WOOT WOOT! It doesn\'t get better than that, folks.
    • ^
    • v
    When our third is born in a couple of months, we will have 3 kids 2 years apart from each other.

    I couldn\'t bear to think of taking a hiatus from diaper changing only to go back to wiping asses. Nor did I want to put away a crib and then put it back together.

    But besides the selfish reasons, having kids close together in age gives them siblings that they can relate to. We know some people where they have younger siblings that are 10 years younger than them. There is no way having a younger sister being born when you are in 5th grade is going to be as tight as being in high school together.

    Just my $.02
    • ^
    • v
    The term \"Irish Twins\" is too close (one kid is barely turning one when the the second is born). There\'s too much insanity in that first year and to combine that with another pregnancy seems a bit over the edge. Beyond 3-4 years apart feels like too much. Yeah, great you\'ve got a \"helper\" and a built in babysitter, but you also have an older kid that resents always having to do those things and has no connection on a peer level with the younger kid. I say between 2-3 is best, but that\'s just what works for me and my family.
    • ^
    • v
    I\'m going to agree with the 2-3 years apart.. That gives a woman\'s body time to heal (they say it takes 18 months for the body to recover)..
    Some friends of mine have what I guess you\'d call \"Irish Triplets\".. She had the first baby, a boy.. Got pregnant less than 3 months later, Baby #2 was due the same month Baby #1 was to turn a year old.. But Baby #2, a girl, was born 6 weeks early.. So they had a 2 month old at Baby #1\'s first birthday... Then when Baby #2 was about 6 months old, she got preg with Baby #3, another boy..
    Now they have Baby #1 who turned 2 a few of months ago, Baby #2 that\'s almost a year and half and newborn Baby #3... I can\'t even fathom trying to parent a 2 y/o a 1 y/o and a newborn at the same time, it has to be extremely stressful to say the least....
    • ^
    • v
    My first sone was born early last March. My wife is now 33 weeks pregnant with our second son. The situation is already driving us nuts. We have not yet finished paying off the first baby\'s NICU bills and we are most likely going to have a bit of a preemie again. There is also the obvious increased consumption rate of diapers, formula, ect. To top it all off, we closed on our first house last summer, and we are still hemoraging money trying to get everything ready for the kids. However, despite the apparent insanity and not having a frame of reference on \"years between kids\", I think I will be glad to get it all out of the way quickly, enjoy everything I can, and start squirling away money for college funds. :)
    • ^
    • v
    i will said that spare 2 years is the best
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus