I'm 43 with no kids, but want 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?

Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.

Only 43???? Are you out of your mind?

This whole discussion is probably moot if you're thinking of having biological children.

^^ Where are you from PP? Open your eyes, 43 is hardly unheard of.

This is not true. Statistically speaking more women are having kids over 40 and with the right preparation (vitamins, folic acid, healthy) ...they are more successful and better parents then the "younger generation". Women have careers, and are waiting longer. Couples are getting married older and then having healthy kids. Its 2015 people.

Yea. I'm sure these kids when they are 40 with their own families will be THRILLED to either have dead parents or parents in their mid 80s who will have ZERO chance of knowing their own grandkids. But hey, at least with that mountain of money you supposedly spent all that time earning, they can dry their tears with 100 dollar bills.

Again, my uncle -- who is 65 now and probably the same age as you PP -- is not only very happy to be alive but was fine with this life.

BTW, you can tell the age of the posters by their tendencies to naysay everything and a weirdly obvious strain of misogyny/homophobia, OP!

Don't listen to them! You have options:
1) reproductive technologies
2) adoption
3) fostering
4) conceiving naturally (a stretch for a first time conception but if your OB/GYN is on board, you have a better chance).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

"Breed" has always be used in a hostile, often anti-woman context.

Don't make me say "check your privilege" OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?

Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.

Only 43???? Are you out of your mind?

This whole discussion is probably moot if you're thinking of having biological children.

^^ Where are you from PP? Open your eyes, 43 is hardly unheard of.

This is not true. Statistically speaking more women are having kids over 40 and with the right preparation (vitamins, folic acid, healthy) ...they are more successful and better parents then the "younger generation". Women have careers, and are waiting longer. Couples are getting married older and then having healthy kids. Its 2015 people.

Yea. I'm sure these kids when they are 40 with their own families will be THRILLED to either have dead parents or parents in their mid 80s who will have ZERO chance of knowing their own grandkids. But hey, at least with that mountain of money you supposedly spent all that time earning, they can dry their tears with 100 dollar bills.

You have no idea when or even IF the kids will grow up to have kids. For all you know the kids could wind up having kids in their 20's and that would mean the grandparents would be in their 60's when the grandchild is born - hardly relics. Those grandparents might even be alive and well when their great grandchildren are born.

There are far worse things than being born to two people who both want you.

I think that you need to think about the "what ifs" though. What if you agree to try to have a baby together and you find that you are unable to conceive using your own eggs. Would you give up on the idea of having a baby or would you be willing to try using donor egg(s). Would you be o.k. having a baby that was not biologically related to you but is biologically related to him. Could that potentially make things complicated for you if there was ever a custody dispute...

Look at all angles before you leap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?

Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.

Only 43???? Are you out of your mind?

This whole discussion is probably moot if you're thinking of having biological children.

^^ Where are you from PP? Open your eyes, 43 is hardly unheard of.

This is not true. Statistically speaking more women are having kids over 40 and with the right preparation (vitamins, folic acid, healthy) ...they are more successful and better parents then the "younger generation". Women have careers, and are waiting longer. Couples are getting married older and then having healthy kids. Its 2015 people.

Yea. I'm sure these kids when they are 40 with their own families will be THRILLED to either have dead parents or parents in their mid 80s who will have ZERO chance of knowing their own grandkids. But hey, at least with that mountain of money you supposedly spent all that time earning, they can dry their tears with 100 dollar bills.

Again, my uncle -- who is 65 now and probably the same age as you PP -- is not only very happy to be alive but was fine with this life.

BTW, you can tell the age of the posters by their tendencies to naysay everything and a weirdly obvious strain of misogyny/homophobia, OP!

.

What an obnoxious statement to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

"Breed" has always be used in a hostile, often anti-woman context.

Don't make me say "check your privilege" OK?

Look, if it has taken most of your adult life from 25 to 43, you don't really want to spend time raising a family. Be honest about it. You just want the baby as an accessory and an add-on to the picture you think your life should look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

"Breed" has always be used in a hostile, often anti-woman context.

Don't make me say "check your privilege" OK?

Look, if it has taken most of your adult life from 25 to 43, you don't really want to spend time raising a family. Be honest about it. You just want the baby as an accessory and an add-on to the picture you think your life should look like.

Wow. Maybe they always wanted kids but were waiting for all the chips to fall into place for them (fall in love, get married, have kids) and it simply never happened. Not at 43 the option is to never have kids or have a child under different circumstances than you ever envisioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

No.

[Anonymous]

Given the circumstances you described, OP, I'd go for it and at least give it a shot. Then again, I happen to be ok with singles adopting or choosing to go it alone if they are prepared to provide for their child in every way.

[Anonymous]

Totally selfish..... YOU want a kid.... you are not building a family.... you are not doing this out of love.... you are not even starting with a stable committed relationship because he will have his boy friends and you will have your boy friends popping in and out of the kids life.

Women get baby "hungry" some of it is biological.... by your age, while you are still able to have children, my guess is that the height of the biological imperative has significantly diminished. That means that most likely you are wanting a baby for another reason.... some of the reasons I've heard women give are "I want someone to love me," "I want something of myself," "I want someone there for me when I'm old." NONE of these reasons are selfless... they are 100% SELF focused. Kids TAKE they do not GIVE. If the expectation is that the child is going to "complete" you in come way that is delusional. Children are necessarily selfish creatures and only once they are grown doe they (if they are well adjusted) recognize their parents sacrifices and then they MIGHT be some sort of help/support for their aging parents.

You should just get a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even possible at your age?

Umm, yes, I'm only 43! Everything still works the right way and I'm in great shape... My OB/GYN is completely fine with it.

Well then hurry up! I'm guessing it won't work but hoping it will. Good luck!!!!!

I have my first at 41, 2nd at 43, 3rd at 45. No problems, I did marry a younger man, maybe he has strong sperm. Its no big deal if everything still works.

No big deal for you, but you are a statistical anomaly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

"Breed" has always be used in a hostile, often anti-woman context.

Don't make me say "check your privilege" OK?

Look, if it has taken most of your adult life from 25 to 43, you don't really want to spend time raising a family. Be honest about it. You just want the baby as an accessory and an add-on to the picture you think your life should look like.

Wow. Maybe they always wanted kids but were waiting for all the chips to fall into place for them (fall in love, get married, have kids) and it simply never happened. Not at 43 the option is to never have kids or have a child under different circumstances than you ever envisioned.

Did you READ the post? She isn't in "love" with anyone.... the man is gay and they just want a kid to have a kid.... they are NOT a couple they are just friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a toy breed dog or a new handbag if you want an accessory. A baby deserves more. Volunteer your time or money for neglected children who are already here. No need for to breed.

"Breed" has always be used in a hostile, often anti-woman context.

Don't make me say "check your privilege" OK?

Look, if it has taken most of your adult life from 25 to 43, you don't really want to spend time raising a family. Be honest about it. You just want the baby as an accessory and an add-on to the picture you think your life should look like.

Wow. Maybe they always wanted kids but were waiting for all the chips to fall into place for them (fall in love, get married, have kids) and it simply never happened. Not at 43 the option is to never have kids or have a child under different circumstances than you ever envisioned.

Did you READ the post? She isn't in "love" with anyone.... the man is gay and they just want a kid to have a kid.... they are NOT a couple they are just friends.

You obviously didn't READ the PP's post (or you are too dim to understand it). Try again, honey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally selfish..... YOU want a kid.... you are not building a family.... you are not doing this out of love.... you are not even starting with a stable committed relationship because he will have his boy friends and you will have your boy friends popping in and out of the kids life.

Women get baby "hungry" some of it is biological.... by your age, while you are still able to have children, my guess is that the height of the biological imperative has significantly diminished. That means that most likely you are wanting a baby for another reason.... some of the reasons I've heard women give are "I want someone to love me," "I want something of myself," "I want someone there for me when I'm old." NONE of these reasons are selfless... they are 100% SELF focused. Kids TAKE they do not GIVE. If the expectation is that the child is going to "complete" you in come way that is delusional. Children are necessarily selfish creatures and only once they are grown doe they (if they are well adjusted) recognize their parents sacrifices and then they MIGHT be some sort of help/support for their aging parents.

You should just get a pet.

Well! You certainly are wildly invested in another woman's choices! They must affect you greatly!

Oh, wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, DCUM falls into two very clearly divided groups:

1) people who have kids in their 40s;
2) people who stridently disapprove -- with charts!

Here's my question: would #2 people disapprove if OP adopted kids in her 40s like my SIL did?

Is fostering O.K. to you?

If so, why or why not?

OP, you can guess that I'm in Camp #1; my advice to you is never to run your life by consensus. You're the only person who gets to live it.

Camp 3. People who think this entire arrangement is immoral and selfish on op's part. No matter what the age

This. Don't so CRAZY OP. This is a terrible thing to do to a poor kid.

WHAT? How is this a terrible thing to do to a child?

Do you say the same about single women who use a sperm donor (like my boss, who makes $300K+)?
Or married gay men who use a surrogate (like my colleague and his husband - both of whom are white shoe attorneys)?
Or perhaps lesbian couples who rely on a sperm donor who is a close friend (like my dear friends who are raising beautiful twin daughters)?

Lots of well adjusted, successful people have children outside the meet in college -> married -> buy MoCo house -> 2.5 kids trajectory.

NP, but yes. I would say that all of the circumstances that you describe are selfish acts of self-absorbed, maladjusted people who selfishly bring new children into the world in less than ideal circumstances FOR THE CHILD. Their "wanting" to have kids should not trump the best interests of the poor kid who asked for none of their craziness.

another +1000 here

This is titled "I'm 43, I WANT..."

Why would you willingly do this to a child?

You WILL be in your 50's lugging a kid to kindergarten.
You WILL be in your mid- to late- 50's and early 60's lugging a kid (and their necessary equipment) to & from little league or other extracurricular activities. Staying up late doing homework, and teaching life skills.
You WILL be in your 60's when the kid would graduate high school, and mid-60's upon standard aged college graduation. (What was that about saving and retirement?)
And, let's not forget that as you age you're more and more likely to incur lengthy and expensive illnesses which require massive amounts of $$$, time and caregiving.

This entire thread is further notion of how selfish we Americans have become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally selfish..... YOU want a kid.... you are not building a family.... you are not doing this out of love.... you are not even starting with a stable committed relationship because he will have his boy friends and you will have your boy friends popping in and out of the kids life.

Women get baby "hungry" some of it is biological.... by your age, while you are still able to have children, my guess is that the height of the biological imperative has significantly diminished. That means that most likely you are wanting a baby for another reason.... some of the reasons I've heard women give are "I want someone to love me," "I want something of myself," "I want someone there for me when I'm old." NONE of these reasons are selfless... they are 100% SELF focused. Kids TAKE they do not GIVE. If the expectation is that the child is going to "complete" you in come way that is delusional. Children are necessarily selfish creatures and only once they are grown doe they (if they are well adjusted) recognize their parents sacrifices and then they MIGHT be some sort of help/support for their aging parents.

You should just get a pet.

No.