Nice theory but wrong. In my own family there is 16 months between my first born and second born and 13 months between my second and third. My wife was born 11 months before her sister. Cheers Guy Keith Griffiths wrote: > snip > A fact that has escaped me until now is that there are real physical > constraints preventing births being too close to each other. > > We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or > about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the > mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to > learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months was > required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether > the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means > that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the > first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting > pregnant gradually increases. > > snip > > The question is have I made some false assumptions along the way, or have I > not taken other factors into account? > ~~ > Keith Griffiths > -- Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! http://anguline.co.uk/ Anguline Research Archives

There is indeed a theory that breast feeding is a natural contraceptive for a while but it is not infallable as Guy notes - and I would be surprised if it was 98% effective. I was told not to depend on it. Also these days many women do not breast feed for long if at all. Speaking of the past those who engaged wet nurses and did not feed themselves would also not have this protection whatever its value. Broadly speaking it takes the woman's body 9 months to recover fully from having a baby. Ros ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Etchells" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] Time between births > Nice theory but wrong. > In my own family there is 16 months between my first born and second > born and 13 months between my second and third. > My wife was born 11 months before her sister. > Cheers > Guy > > > Keith Griffiths wrote: > > snip > > A fact that has escaped me until now is that there are real physical > > constraints preventing births being too close to each other. > > > > We all know about the gestation period being about 266 days or 38 weeks or > > about 9 months. I obviously thought there must be a period of time for the > > mother to recover. But when I asked my wife about it, I was surprised to > > learn (males just don't think about these things) that at least 6 months was > > required. Making enquiries on the Net I found that this is because whether > > the mother breast feeds the baby or not, the very act of giving birth means > > that there is a lactation period which acts as a contraceptive. For the > > first 6 months it is 98% effective, after 6 months the risk of getting > > pregnant gradually increases. > > > > snip > > > > The question is have I made some false assumptions along the way, or have I > > not taken other factors into account? > > ~~ > > Keith Griffiths > > > > -- > Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. > http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts > not promises! > http://anguline.co.uk/ Anguline Research Archives > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >

Hello, May I put in my 2 cents worth? 1. beast feeding on demand (whenever the child wants it, every time) can be a pretty good way of spacing births. This subject has interested me because one of my dear friends is a midwife. In my genealogy files, I find a two year spacing occurs the most often, which can be achieved with on demand feeding. 2. As pointed out earlier, those who had wet nurses had a child nearly every year. 3. I would find, if there was a child born nearly a year after another, quite often, if iIdug a little deeper, I would find the earlier child had died soon. And the note about the baby being strapped to the mother's chest........how interesting. Thank you for sharing that. Regards, Sue Prideaux