elysian
August 14th 2004, 10:23 AM
I've read some intriguing medical evidence that both mothers and children are healthier and there is far less likelihood of premature birth and infant mortality if there is a span of 24-36 months or more between pregnancies, i.e. if a woman waits until the previous child is at least two or three before becoming pregnant again. See "Three to Five Saves Lives." (http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l13edsum.shtml#contents)
I am curious what some of you might think on the subject (which does not necessarily discount NFP or other natural methods of contraception.) Part of what piqued my interest is that my parents had made a conscious effort to have kids as quickly as possible. This was the 1960's and they lived in a backwater town in which it was very common for people to marry young and have large families. My oldest sister is three years older than me, my next oldest sister is a year and a half older than me, meaning that my mother had gotten pregnant again when the previous child was about nine months old. According to current scientific wisdom (the correlations between child spacing and illness/mortality were likely unknown in the 1960's) this sort of close spacing isn't a good idea.
The theory is that if a woman has children spaced too closely together not only does she suffer because her body can't replenish itself adequately, but the younger children are at risk for congenital birth defects, failure to thrive, and an increased risk of infant mortality.
Among the findings: Compared with children born less than 2 years after a previous birth, children born 3 to 4 years after a previous birth are:
1.5 times more likely to survive the first week of life;
2.2 times more likely to survive the first 28 days of life;
2.3 times more likely to survive the first year of life; and
2.4 times more likely to survive to age five.
Thoughts?
I am curious what some of you might think on the subject (which does not necessarily discount NFP or other natural methods of contraception.) Part of what piqued my interest is that my parents had made a conscious effort to have kids as quickly as possible. This was the 1960's and they lived in a backwater town in which it was very common for people to marry young and have large families. My oldest sister is three years older than me, my next oldest sister is a year and a half older than me, meaning that my mother had gotten pregnant again when the previous child was about nine months old. According to current scientific wisdom (the correlations between child spacing and illness/mortality were likely unknown in the 1960's) this sort of close spacing isn't a good idea.
The theory is that if a woman has children spaced too closely together not only does she suffer because her body can't replenish itself adequately, but the younger children are at risk for congenital birth defects, failure to thrive, and an increased risk of infant mortality.
Among the findings: Compared with children born less than 2 years after a previous birth, children born 3 to 4 years after a previous birth are:
1.5 times more likely to survive the first week of life;
2.2 times more likely to survive the first 28 days of life;
2.3 times more likely to survive the first year of life; and
2.4 times more likely to survive to age five.
Thoughts?