Anyone else out there going to have three 2 and under when the next baby is born?

hairgurl23 · April 2014

Anyone else out there going to have three two and under when the new baby is born? And non of them are twins

1982Babies · April 2014

I'm going to shoot for 4 under 2 after this one is born. Wish me luck!

Lucasa2005 · April 2014

Well I'm close enough. I will have 3 under 2.5years old. I have a 9 year old son, 2 year old son (dec 4) and twins due July 11th.

aimeepigott · April 2014

I'll just have 2 under 2! Well at least for 4 months! DS will be 20 mos when LO is born

acciovino · April 2014

Huh? Is that possible?

1982Babies · April 2014

Caitlinrj said:

Huh? Is that possible?

@Caitlinrj - if she's having them all <8 months, sure! Most likely she's just trolling.

acciovino · April 2014

1982Babies said:

Caitlinrj said:

Huh? Is that possible?

@Caitlinrj - if she's having them all <8 months, sure! Most likely she's just trolling.

LOL I wasn't sure if it was my pregnancy brain, but I was all... Whaaaa????? =P~

jnnfrrose6 · April 2014

1982Babies said:

Caitlinrj said:

Huh? Is that possible?

@Caitlinrj - if she's having them all <8 months, sure! Most likely she's just trolling.

Or if you're like Tori Spelling and have Irish twins. Just do that twice in a row and the first and third would be about 22 months apart.

bewilderingstar · May 2014

Why are there so many trolls?!

Oh that's right...

yhaener · May 2014

Hi I was lurking and it is possible to have three under two. My DS is 25 months, DD is 13 weeks and I've already had two cycles so if I were to get pregnant (not planning on it) I'd have three under two for a couple of months.

jnnfrrose6 · May 2014

yhaener said:

Hi I was lurking and it is possible to have three under two. My DS is 25 months, DD is 13 weeks and I've already had two cycles so if I were to get pregnant (not planning on it) I'd have three under two for a couple of months.

2 years=24 months, so no, you would not have 3 under 2. In fact, you don't even have 2 under 2.

Hadynimogen · May 2014

didnt think that was possible. thought i was bad having 3 under 3.5 once this one is born lol

ghostof5letters · May 2014

Pregnancy math screws me all up. First I'm told that this pregnancy lasts 10 months including the first two weeks I'm not pregnant, and now this.

I'm never going to figure this all out.

knitsandgiggles · May 2014

ghostof5letters · May 2014

Technically speaking, if #2 was a premie, it might be possible, right? I'm ashamed of how much time I've spent thinking about this.

Salsera29 · May 2014

yhaener said:

Hi I was lurking and it is possible to have three under two. My DS is 25 months, DD is 13 weeks and I've already had two cycles so if I were to get pregnant (not planning on it) I'd have three under two for a couple of months.

I hope you don't plan on helping any of them with their math homework.

runrinserepeat · May 2014

Guys. It's possible. Baby #1. 10 months later, baby #2. 10 months later, baby #3. 20 months total, 3 babies, less than 2 years. The clock doesn't start until the first baby is born so you don't count the length of the first peegnancy.

Of course, that kinda thing should probably come with a psych eval but whatever.

tourqeyes · May 2014

I'm going to admit at first I was all -- HAHAH NO THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. But after someone said it the way ^^^ did, I get it now.

1982Babies · May 2014

tourqeyes said:

I'm going to admit at first I was all -- HAHAH NO THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. But after someone said it the way ^^^ did, I get it now.

I was feeling really slow, and I'm glad I wasn't alone... @tourqeyes and @ghostof5letters

Thanks @kleMcK

Salsera29 · May 2014

kleMcK said:

Guys. It's possible. Baby #1. 10 months later, baby #2. 10 months later, baby #3. 20 months total, 3 babies, less than 2 years. The clock doesn't start until the first baby is born so you don't count the length of the first peegnancy. Of course, that kinda thing should probably come with a psych eval but whatever.

Ah :-) Thank you...it was hurting my brain trying to figure out if OP was just messing with us. However, even my pregnancy brain can't convince me that 25 months is under 2!

cuntasaurusrex · May 2014

This is all moot, however, because her first post about this baby on the first tri board said her oldest was 19 months (in November), thereby making him/her over 24 months when this one is born.

1982Babies · May 2014

aliletz said:

This is all moot, however, because her first post about this baby on the first tri board said her oldest was 19 months (in November), thereby making him/her over 24 months when this one is born.

Actually, her "oldest" was 9 in 11/2013.. She's fulla shit

eortman · May 2014

Just to be fair, the OP does say "three 2 and under", not 3 under 2. This means you could have a child that will be turning 3 a month after the baby was born and one in between. So, totally possible and probably not as terribly uncommon as 3 under 2, although I do have to question the sanity of doing this. :-)

acciovino · May 2014

@eortman

I clearly read it wrong then. Also...I'm just saying, ain't nobody besides the nurses are getting up in my business for AT LEAST 6 weeks. Probably much longer. I can't believe that Tori Spelling got pregnant before leaving the hospital. Like her DH really couldn't wait? Effffff that. SO dangerous.

yhaener · May 2014

Sorry! What I meant to write was that it is totally possible to have three kids two and under. Maybe I shouldn't post after a middle of the night feeding or I guess just proof read:)

melissadanson · May 2014

I will have three under two! My daughter is 19 months and I have twins due July 4. Even best case scenario my daughter will be 21 months when they are born....

mrscurlygurl · May 2014

melissadanson said: I will have three under two! My daughter is 19 months and I have twins due July 4. Even best case scenario my daughter will be 21 months when they are born.... The troll OP was referencing people who would have this scenario without twins though. Good luck...your hands will be full!

melissadanson · May 2014

Pregnancy brain times 2! Yes to having my hands full!!!!

hairgurl23 · May 2014

Oh goodness so sorry for the slight mishap on my part. You girls are pretty harsh!!!! Yes my oldest is almost 9 and then my next is 3 1/2 and then the next is 2 and then the next is 8 months and my last little one is due at the end of July. So sorry I should have said my 2 yr old will be 27 months if I need to be specific. Yes that makes 5 in total come July. And yes it's going to be busy but I wouldn't trade it for anything and no I'm not a troll??? What the heck????

Ecomom17 · May 2014

kleMcK said:

Guys. It's possible. Baby #1. 10 months later, baby #2. 10 months later, baby #3. 20 months total, 3 babies, less than 2 years. The clock doesn't start until the first baby is born so you don't count the length of the first peegnancy. Of course, that kinda thing should probably come with a psych eval but whatever.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Except for that last sentence. I mean, I wouldn't do it, but lots of people want their babies close together. I'm curious as to why so many people are calling OP a troll? It's a legitimate question. As @kleMcK pointed out. Also, I think it's hilarious that kleMcK's typo makes it "peegnancy." Pretty accurate! LOL

OP, to answer your question, I don't think many of us are in that boat. Good luck! I have a friend from my last BMB who's about to have 4 kiddos and the 2nd will be 2.5 when this 4th one is born, so close enough to your scenario. She seems pretty calm about it.

mrscurlygurl · May 2014

You come off like a troll when it's a super random first post with typos and you never return to continue the discussion. Good luck OP.

Anyone else out there going to have three 2 and under when the next baby is born?

Answers

Choose Another Board

Search Boards