Pregnancy spacing key to babies’ health

[heidler1]

Pregnancy spacing key to babies’ health
CHICAGO — Women can maximize their chances of having healthy babies by spacing their pregnancies at least 18 months but no more than five years apart, researchers say.

The researchers reached that conclusion after an analysis of 67 international studies involving more than 11 million pregnancies
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14373581.htm


If Jesus cares about babies and children, why would he cause birth spacing to effect their health. It makes me think either he don't know or don't care or both.

[kiraboo]

1. That's an interesting comment about Jesus. Another thing

I've wondered: where is evidence of god in the mentally ill? These people are tormented and quite possibly incapable of communicating with a god, were there one. Apparently god only exists for those who are able to articulate that existence.

[NMMNG]

9. There's plenty of evidence of god there

At least amongst people with schizophrenia. A significant number of them have pronounced religious obsessions. They can be as simple as needing to pray dozens to hundreds of times a day or as severe as delusions that one is on a mission from God to save the world from some potential disaster.

Then there's GWB....

[Kber]

2. I understand how spacing babies too close would be physically

taxing for the mother, and therefore create a more dangerous pregnancy with greater risks (pregnancy kicked my ass pretty good).

But spacing them farther - don't you think this is a factor of the mother being older? I mean, if I have my first kid at 28 and wait ten years for the second, I am now 38 and technically high risk just because of my age. It it really a greater risk if the baby I have at 38 is my second child instead of my first?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[enlightenment]

4. Not really, unless your health declines in those 10 years

That first baby kind of sets you up for subsequent pregnancies. If you had the first one at 38, you'd be looking at higher risks as an older 1st time mom.

My mom had her first kid when she was 27 and her last when she was 42. Five pregnancies in total.

The sickly one was the first -- the last one checked in at 10 lbs and 24 inches, and was damn near standing up by the time they left the hospital. The last was born in 1962, so we're not talking great advances in medicine here.

[heidler1]

5. I was the last of five and weighed 12.5 lbs. I'm now 80 and I'm pretty

healthy. My sister who is next youngest is 2.5 years older. I believe that I'm lucky that the others broke trail for me being I was so big.

[enlightenment]

7. Seems to be a trend in most families.

I'm fourth of five -- in order from oldest to youngest: 5.5 lb boy; ll months later, 6.5 lb girl; 3 years later, 7.75 lb girl; 6 years later, 9.5 lb girl (me!); 5 years later, 10 lb boy.

I think there's something to be said for allowing your body to recover between pregnancies. I've also heard that you should either have your kids very close (18 months to 2.5 years apart) or between 5 and 6 years apart. Presumably it creates a better dynamic (you kids like each other better).

Didn't work for me -- I spent the first 4 years of my little brother's life trying to get rid of him. But it did work for my next oldest sister; I was her personal doll the first 4 years of my life.

[JuniperLea]

3. I can find nothing about that research foundation...

Weird.

[heidler1]

6. Right before your eyes.

http://www.tdh-geneve.ch/www/pdf/projets/col/col25138en.pdf

[JuniperLea]

8. Oh, I can find "them" no problem

I find nothing that points to them being a valid research source...

[Solon]

10. Interesting...

OK, interesting little side story here, I was a "Honeymooner" born about 10 months after my parents were married, I was a little over 2 weeks late and also weighed in at 12 pounds even. My mother was warned that she should NOT get pregnant again for at least 6 years, she almost died when I was born(emergency C-Section). The interesting thing is that my Mother is Catholic, Dad was nothing at the time, anyways they still used birth control, but you don't expect any married couple, much less newlyweds to stay chaste for 6 years. My sister, in contrast to me, was completely planned, my Mother planned the DAY of the conception, and the day of birth as well, also removed by C-Section at a little over 9 pounds or so. We were both healthy, but this is just ancedotal, plus somewhat extraordinary circumstances, so take it with a grain of salt.

Some women can recover quickly from pregnancies, depending on how difficult it is, others never recover, and others take a VERY long time, individual control over their own bodies is the best way to ensure healthy mothers and healthy infants. Seems simple to me.

[heidler1]

11. Your understanding of the whole deal seems to be like mine.

The reason I put in the Religion/Theology forum was that this understanding seem to me to fly in the face of any over site by any gods or supreme beings. It makes good sense if you put human pregnancy development on a pure animal level. IMO there are endless examples of no god cares, no god knows and therefore humans must learn to cope with everything, all by themselves.