AIBU to think of having an under 9 month age gap..

[Overthinking1]

This is totally hypothetical at the moment as I appreciate any pregnancy success is relatively un predictable..but my partner and I are going through IVf now (same sex).

She is going first as she is almost 40 and we hope to have two children..I am planning to carry our second child.

we have been discussing timescales around when this should happen.
Would we be insane to try and have a second child so close to the other? I'm just thinking there may be the benefits of almost twins without the health risks for any parent carrying two (appreciate twins are difficult in many other ways too)

I know 2 is going to be crazy hard regardless, so would appreciate any thoughts on what you all think?? is a very small age gap ridiculous or would you do it if you had the choice?

[HidingFromDD]

I'd aim for different school years due to the issues previously raised. I'd also want a strong bond with the baby before considering getting pregnant (I did have hypermesis twice though)

[KatyS36]

Good luck whatever your choices are.

I had SPD and carpel tunnel and was effectively disabled for the latter weeks of the pregnancy and start of newborn phase. I couldn't have coped without substantial support from by non pregnant partner (for me my husband).

Whilst my dual complications are rare, don't underestimate how gruelling pregnancy and childbirth is and the value of a partner who isn't going through this themselves.

[VestaTilley]

No way in hell. You’d have to be insane. I know friends with a 20 month gap and it’s nearly killed them.

Do you have loads of family support and a good network? You’ll need it for 2 under 2, let alone 2 with just 9 months apart.

Wait and see if you can have DC1 first- do not bite off more than you can chew with children. It can push you - and your relationship - over the edge.

[ChameleonClara]

I think it would be better not to be pregnant at the same time, really, as you have no idea what will happen with the pregnancy or the birth or the health of the baby.

I hate to sound doomy but it is perhaps sensible to think about what if something untoward happened, rather than imagine only best cases.

One pregancy at a time is nature's way and maybe that is wise, even though you are not restricted in this aspect yourselves?

[Hopdathelf]

Remember they may track quite closely against each other for the rest of their lives. It has pros and cons. Can you afford to send both to university at the same time if they do courses at opposite ends of the country or even abroad? Can you afford two weddings, two deposit hand outs? Do you want to help your children but will end up in a situation where you just can’t.

[Branleuse]

I had a small age gap and while it was extremely hard to begin with, I think the fact its one each will make it easier, as two pregnancies in a row was so hard on me to recover from. Im also assuming that youll both be as hands on as each other?
Its really nice for mine being close in age

[SplendidSuns1000]

The only issues you will encounter with children close together is people asking if they're twins, and perhaps asking how they're so close in age. Many children are asked those questions and come out unscathed!

Best of luck to you both x

[ittakes2]

There are people who fall pregnant straight away after a birth and that child is usually born a bit premature due to the womb not having chance to recover so a 9 month gap is not unheard of. I have twins and likes having twins but it really depends on your life goals. My only regret is I can barely remember their baby and toddler days as I was feeding and cleaning machine. But there are huge benefits as they go through the different stages at a similar time.

[Mumoftwoinprimary]

Three reasons why I think this is a bad idea:-

1. “Your baby, my baby” rather than “you two’s two kids”.
   

2. School years - if they end up in the same school year it will be complicated as the older one is likely to start off ahead which may be hard to deal with
3. Privacy - if they are only a few months apart then every time they meet someone they will have to explain that no - they are not twins and no - they are not step siblings and how all that is biologically possible. Which is fine but sometimes you just want to sit through double geography in peace without explaining your entire life to the person you sit next to.

[MoiraNotRuby]

Another reason for spacing them out - exam results are a lot easier when only one child is getting them. One of my DC is much more academic than the other and it would not be fun if they were in the same school year.

[puppychaos]

We are also a same-sex couple and are planning a 4 month (!) gap. If you feel like you can handle it, then go for it! I know of quite a few lesbian couples who have done this and it's worked well for them.

[IceCreamAndCandyfloss]

I have a friend who has an 11 month gap and it’s draining listening to the moaning about lack of time, sleep, people not providing free childcare etc.

I’d wait and have a bigger gap to avoid the many pitfalls mentioned on the other posts.

[8dpwoah]

My thinking at the minute, 11 weeks pregnant with number 2 and with DD 21 months, is that I haven't been much good to her these last few weeks as I've felt crap. But we've managed as she is at nursery and my DP absolutely does his share and more too. I just think you might miss out on the newborn experience with your DC1 if you are IVF then pregnant with DC2 almost straight away, and you might regret that. Plus if you're unwell in first trimester your wife will be finding her feet with a newborn when really it seems to be ideal if both of you are on hand, you as the 'non-birther' for DC1 will need to be really hands on to support your wife through her birth recovery as well.
So a small age gap sound good but for me not that short for the reasons I've stated. I think it's a lovely idea in general, just the logistics of those first few months of baby and of pregnancy are tough on their own without being combined together.

[Overthinking1]

to answer a couple of questions yes we have a very 50/50 relationship and both share role equally which is a bonus. we also both earn well, so whilst paying for two sets of fees won't be the best of years it is doable.

[fastingnewby]

Leaving aside the concerns about the baby stage, I would not want them in the same school year, for their sake. Siblings but not twins, they deserve their own school experience.
They could still be less than 12 months apart, but carefully timed around school cutoff dates wherever you live.

[PerspicaciousGreen]

I would think long and hard before planning to be pregnant and postpartum that close to each other. I think small gaps can be lovely and people manage with twins all the time, but given that you have a choice I really wouldn't want to put myself in the position of, say, one having hyperemesis and the other having SPD. Or you both having C-sections and struggling with recovery. Or one of you having mastitis and one of you having postpartum DVT. It's hard enough being pregnant and having a newborn without two of you at it and no one being at the top of their game to help the other one.

[Brunt0n]

I generally think people are a bit naive to start planning #2 before they’ve even conceived #1. You might decide you don’t want a second!

[PandaFluff]

I'd try to get them into different school years. I think I'd wait to see how you get on with #1 first.

[PandaFluff]

And be careful your partner doesn't feel pressure to recover from birth so she can help with baby number 2 quickly.

[Bumpsadaisie]

I think as you are two women the situation is slightly different to where one woman carries and BFs both the two babies.

I think if one woman has two babies so close it is exhausting for her body, her eldest is still a very small baby when he or she has to "make way" for the younger...

But where you have two women, one carrying each baby and feeding each baby - or I guess you would both feed both of them? Seems like you could do it without being a great strain on one woman's body and the eldest baby would still be able to be "the baby" because there would be two mums! Quite different to one woman trying to carry and manage two small infants.

However, I am not sure it is a good idea.

Might you not start to feel like two women with two babies living together, though? One baby would be "hers" and the other "yours" in the sense that you would have that primary maternal reln only with your 'own' baby?

Also I think it is ideal - even if you're a same sex couple - to have a primary parent and a secondary parent. Primary parent is the one who is the most involved with the baby emotionally, because having a baby is an emotional rollercoaster. Secondary parent also loves and is involved with the baby but has a wider role of supporting primary parent to manage everything in the background plus the very intense relationship generated by having a small baby. Someone who can say - for example - "its alright to co-sleep - don't worry - baby won't be in our bed forever! If this works for now lets do it" and also "we can go out - baby will be fine with grandma - don't worry" - someone to provide perspective and sense check.

If you are both being primary parents at the same time, that very important role gets lost. Two people trying to be primary parents at the same time with all the emotions and challenges of two babies, and no secondary parent - could be challenging.

I am not saying it would not be possible. Of course it would - single mothers do it all the time and hats off to them. But not sure it would be something I would actively choose.

If you waited, she would be primary parent and you secondary parent, and then second time around it would be the other way around.

[Fieldsofstars]

Have the first and see how you feel.
It really depends on the personality of your baby if this would be emotionally doable.
Some babies are really chill, others can be rather full on in ways that are just never ending.

You’d be emotionally crippled if your first is one is high needs and added another to the mix too early.

[FortunesFave]

@Artesia

I think you risk a really strange dynamic for the kids growing up- they would be so close they would want to do the same things, but the older one would always bit a little bit further ahead, quicker, more co-ordinated etc, and the younger one feeling not quite as good.

I agree with this. I think 18 months might be better.

[museumum]

No. I think you should be ready to give 100% to support your partner in her birth recovery and breast feeding. Early pregnancy is hard so I wouldn’t try till the first child is 6mo old (a lot changes at 6mo with your child probably starting to sit up on their own and starting to eat food).

[museumum]

I should add that my dh was as involved a father as you can imagine but with breastfeeding it didn’t feel like we were “equal” parents till the 6mo Mark. I needed him as support till then and frankly didn’t have energy to care for him the way one should care for a pregnant partner.

[ElderMillennial]

You need to think of the practicalities of being pregnant with a young child, then two young children to look after and the finances of mat leave and childcare. Balance that with your ages and any other factors making you feel this needs to be done quickly.