When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think 20 something year old moms are clueless. I' sure that comment was made in anger and judgment just as the "dumb old ass" comment was made in anger.

It highly depends on the person. I know some 20 something moms that are great moms. But many women in their 20's want to finish their education, travel, or do volunteer work, or spend time with their husbands, before having children that's all. There is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with the 20 something woman who chooses to have a child instead.

I can speak only for myself - in my 20's I was not partying at all. I was immersed in my studies and work and volunteering. I know I would have been an impatient mom. Now at 40 I don't even give my son timeout. I use positive discipline only. At 20 if I made salmon for dinner and he didn't like it, too bad so sad he would have to go to bed hungry. At 40, if I serve salmon for dinner, I also make sure to put things on the table I know he'll eat or will try. At 20 I would have wanted to socialize alot with friends regardless of whether they had children so long as I got along with them well. Now at 40, many of my friends are the parents of my child's playdates. At 20, I would have resented that I had to revolve my schedule around my child's nap schedule. At 40, it doesn't bother me in the least bit to put his needs before mine. At 20, I would have felt hungry to learn more, take more graduate coursework, etc..but now at 40, I feel I've been there already and completed everything I ever wanted to accomplish in terms of my education and career. At 20 my husband and I would not have been able to travel very much or take my son to quality museums, aquariums, or anything educational that was associated with a cost. So I am just a whole different person now and I know my son has benefitted.
This is not to say some 20 something moms won't do all this too. It's just not as commonly seen.

How do you have enough evidence to conclude that only some 20-something moms practice thoughtful parenting? "Not as commonly seen"... by you? And there's a huge maturity and financial stability leap between 20 (still an undergraduate) and 25 (old enough to have completed a Masters or law school and worked for a year or two). Only PhDs and MDs would need to "finish their educations" beyond the age of 25.

Based on your account of *yourself* in your 20s, I agree you needed to wait. I just don't see how it follows that you are typical and women ready to put their children first at a younger age are atypical.

[Anonymous]

Same PP-- I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with waiting, just continuing to bristle at the suggestion that older mothers take better care of their children than educated, solvent women in their mid-late 20s. I can see how parent education and income levels correlate with child achievement, but it's not correct to say that one needs to wait past 25 to benefit from this effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To deny a child an existence because you think they might want to know both of their biological parents is ridiculous.

That is one thought, or emotion, out of millions and millions of thoughts, emotions, actions, relationships that this person would have in a lifetime. Even agreeing with your iffy premise that they are sad to not know one of their parents, balance that out against an entire lifetime of of happiness and other experiences. Its a drop in the bucket and doesn't define who a child is.

You can't ask kids that were never born if they are happy that they "don't have to suffer," can you? Aren't we all glad that our parents decided to have us after all, despite any hardships or pain we might feel?

Don't judge the value of a life on one minor aspect of it (parentlessness, disability) without taking into balance the millions of amazing, wonderful and beautiful and happy events that also take place.

And if we waited around for perfect parents and perfect circumstances for pregnancies, then there would be 50 babies left on earth!

Did you grow up without knowing the identity of one of your biological parents? If not, how can you be so sure it's a mere drop in the bucket? It's interesting that anonymous sperm/egg donor defenders are never the products of such procedures themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are just being MEAN with those kinds of comments. Regardless of WHAT you think about older women trying to conceive, younger women also have fertility problems sometimes. I am not even 30 y. old and have been TTC for 4 years, and I can see myself at the doctor "begging to try just one more time" if it comes down to that. I wouldn't wish infertility problems to my worse enemy and certainly would never make joke of someone else’s suffering.

The discussion is not about you. IF EVERYONE would go back and read the whole thread, you would see the questions...IS 46 TOO OLD TO HAVE A BABY??

I'll correct you, PP. The original posting is as follows:
We are contemplating having our second child, we are blessed with a healthy 1st child at 38....do we push the envelope at 40 and go for a second? i am scared !!

The PP who stated that she was having fertility issues in her 20s should not be knocked down, as she makes a valid point: ALL women, regardless of age, run the risk of having fertility issues. If I may read between the lines for you, the original poster is quite possibly concerned with her fertility as she nears 40. She may also have questions regarding the health of her child if she has another in her 40s.

So, instead of knocking down women who have fertility issues and who desperately want a child - DESPITE age, perhaps you should visit another thread to pass your time away. I believe there was a mean girls thread under the private/independent school topic.

And what I was knocking was the 46 year old who wanted to have a baby....46 is too damn old. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it...free country.

I agree -- 46 is too old to start trying for a first baby.

[Anonymous]

Oh, but what about a second baby or even third baby at 46?

Since you seem willing to set rules in place so firmly for everyone else, can you clarify that point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4:18, I understand that most people would not agree with me but I think it's selfish for a man or a woman closer to 50 than 40 to start trying to have a baby. How will it feel to have parents in their 70s when you are in your 20s? And if they fall ill, how will it feel to have no other siblings to share the burden of their care? Is it a horrendous crime against humanity? Of course not. Is it selfish? To me, yes. Just like the 70-year old who gave birth in India. A lesser selfishness perhaps, but definitely selfish.

I clarified in an earlier post that I do not think there is anything wrong with having additional children at 46. But a first and likely only child -- yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think 20 something year old moms are clueless. I' sure that comment was made in anger and judgment just as the "dumb old ass" comment was made in anger.

It highly depends on the person. I know some 20 something moms that are great moms. But many women in their 20's want to finish their education, travel, or do volunteer work, or spend time with their husbands, before having children that's all. There is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with the 20 something woman who chooses to have a child instead.

I can speak only for myself - in my 20's I was not partying at all. I was immersed in my studies and work and volunteering. I know I would have been an impatient mom. Now at 40 I don't even give my son timeout. I use positive discipline only. At 20 if I made salmon for dinner and he didn't like it, too bad so sad he would have to go to bed hungry. At 40, if I serve salmon for dinner, I also make sure to put things on the table I know he'll eat or will try. At 20 I would have wanted to socialize alot with friends regardless of whether they had children so long as I got along with them well. Now at 40, many of my friends are the parents of my child's playdates. At 20, I would have resented that I had to revolve my schedule around my child's nap schedule. At 40, it doesn't bother me in the least bit to put his needs before mine. At 20, I would have felt hungry to learn more, take more graduate coursework, etc..but now at 40, I feel I've been there already and completed everything I ever wanted to accomplish in terms of my education and career. At 20 my husband and I would not have been able to travel very much or take my son to quality museums, aquariums, or anything educational that was associated with a cost. So I am just a whole different person now and I know my son has benefitted.
This is not to say some 20 something moms won't do all this too. It's just not as commonly seen.

How do you have enough evidence to conclude that only some 20-something moms practice thoughtful parenting? "Not as commonly seen"... by you? And there's a huge maturity and financial stability leap between 20 (still an undergraduate) and 25 (old enough to have completed a Masters or law school and worked for a year or two). Only PhDs and MDs would need to "finish their educations" beyond the age of 25.

Based on your account of *yourself* in your 20s, I agree you needed to wait. I just don't see how it follows that you are typical and women ready to put their children first at a younger age are atypical.

You said you could see how parent education and financial stability correlate to a child's achievements. But you don't see how age is a factor in all of this. And you ask for statistics. What percentage of 25 year olds in the United States have Masters degrees, law degrees, or MBA's? And what percentage of women who have children at 25 have more than a college degree? Do you really need anyone to pull these facts and figures to prove that only a very small percentage of 25 year olds in this country are well-educated? I think this is common knowledge. If you recognize that parent education correlates to financial stability and you also acknowledge that parent education and financial stability also correlate to a child's superior achievement, then you need only to admit that so few 25 year old women meet the requirements of being well-educated and having financial stability to conclude that the vast majority of 25 year old women are probably not well educated or lack the financial security to foster their child's superior achievement.

By most "older" mothers accounts who have had children at 25 and then more children when they were "older", they will say they are far more patient now at 40 than they were at 25. A 27 year old mom is unable to answer this question as she lacks the experience. Wait until she turns 40 and then ask her if she became more patient with her children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To deny a child an existence because you think they might want to know both of their biological parents is ridiculous.

That is one thought, or emotion, out of millions and millions of thoughts, emotions, actions, relationships that this person would have in a lifetime. Even agreeing with your iffy premise that they are sad to not know one of their parents, balance that out against an entire lifetime of of happiness and other experiences. Its a drop in the bucket and doesn't define who a child is.

You can't ask kids that were never born if they are happy that they "don't have to suffer," can you? Aren't we all glad that our parents decided to have us after all, despite any hardships or pain we might feel?

Don't judge the value of a life on one minor aspect of it (parentlessness, disability) without taking into balance the millions of amazing, wonderful and beautiful and happy events that also take place.

And if we waited around for perfect parents and perfect circumstances for pregnancies, then there would be 50 babies left on earth!

Did you grow up without knowing the identity of one of your biological parents? If not, how can you be so sure it's a mere drop in the bucket? It's interesting that anonymous sperm/egg donor defenders are never the products of such procedures themselves.

So, by the same token, are you the product of an anonymous sperm donation? And you are saying that you wish you hadn't been born?

HOW we got here is one tiny fraction of who we are. I completely reject the idea that because you don't know one of your parents (either from donation, adoption, being orphaned), that your life is too difficult to lead and you shouldn't have been born. Which is essentially the argument of that stringent person.

Yes, I know my parents. I also know a lovely lesbian couple at my church with three glorious, beautiful children. I know friends who have been adopted and struggled with that, too. And in the end, their lives are all worth living.

[Anonymous]

OP -- I am a product of a large Catholic family. My dad was 48 and my mom was 44 when I was born. I had a wonderful upbringing and wouldn't change anything for the world. Since my parents retired when I was pretty young (my dad when I was in high school, my mom when I was in college), I got to spend more time with them. Despite health concerns, my dad outlived my FIL and many of my friends' fathers. Despite being 13 years older than my MIL, my mother is the more active and involved of the two. There are no guarantees in life -- you never know when your day will come -- I've known lots of young people to die (cancer, accidents, etc). I think the important thing is to live life to the fullest and without regrets. Any person who wants to take on the challenges of parenthood, should prepare themselves for the possibility that their child may have severe health issues -- if not at birth, then later on. Sure a woman's chance of having a baby with chromozonal (sp?) defect increases with age, but if such a fetus is produced, it is far more likely to end in a first trimest miscarriage than to proceed to a life birth. All in all though, at 40, chances are that you will have a perfectly normal pregnancy. If you honestly want another child, then you should go for it. You do not want to be 50 or 60 and look back and regret never trying.

[Anonymous]

You said you could see how parent education and financial stability correlate to a child's achievements. But you don't see how age is a factor in all of this. And you ask for statistics. What percentage of 25 year olds in the United States have Masters degrees, law degrees, or MBA's? And what percentage of women who have children at 25 have more than a college degree? Do you really need anyone to pull these facts and figures to prove that only a very small percentage of 25 year olds in this country are well-educated? I think this is common knowledge. If you recognize that parent education correlates to financial stability and you also acknowledge that parent education and financial stability also correlate to a child's superior achievement, then you need only to admit that so few 25 year old women meet the requirements of being well-educated and having financial stability to conclude that the vast majority of 25 year old women are probably not well educated or lack the financial security to foster their child's superior achievement.

By most "older" mothers accounts who have had children at 25 and then more children when they were "older", they will say they are far more patient now at 40 than they were at 25. A 27 year old mom is unable to answer this question as she lacks the experience. Wait until she turns 40 and then ask her if she became more patient with her children.

Greater education and financial stability doesn't necessarily correlate with better parenting or happier children, though. How many children of super rich, super successful parents do you know who are messed up? I know a lot. Money is less important than attention and care.

Maybe it's hard for the PP to believe, but there are PLENTY of happy, well-adjusted children growing up in plainly middle-class homes (with parents who might have had them in their 20s). They too grow up to be happy and productive citizens, even if their chances of going to an Ivy League school or some otherwise "superior achievement" are lower.

And I asked my mother (my wonderful, wonderful mother) who had me at 26 if she thinks she would have been a better mother if she had had me when she was 40. She just laughed (and then looked a little horrified). She and my father (who married at 22) are still together, still happy, still financially secure (though certainly not well-off by D.C. standards), and gave me an absolutely fantastic childhood.

It is perfectly fine, in my view, to wait until you are 40+ to have children, if that's what works for you and the way your life develops. Please do not try to claim that your way is the better way, though. For many people it is not.

Signed,
A 30-year-old mom who was married and had her law degree at 25

[Anonymous]

I don't agree that a 25 year old is necessarily a "worse" new parent than a 40 year old. I met someone with 4 kids: she had the first two in her 20s and the last two in her 30s. She said that if she had started in her 30s she never would have gone past the first two. Not b/c she didn't have enough time (in terms of fertility- she probably did since she had them in her early 30s) but b/c she said she had so much more patience for little kids when she was younger. And that she has very little patience for them now that she is older. I am not suggesting that all people in their 30s/40s have less patience than a 25 year old, but it sure resonated with me. I had my kids in my early 30s and it's hard for me to let a lot of stuff "go" so I sometimes lose my patience. But I don't think I would have been as particular at a younger age b/c I wouldn't have been as set in my ways, my stuff wouldn't have been as nice, and my energy would have been higher.

Still, if I were in your situation, I would go ahead and have a second. I love having two children. Just wanted to point out that there are advantages to being a younger mother too.

[Anonymous]

I am the most recent PP and also had my law degree by 25 and was a mother by 30. Funny.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP who insisted that 25 is plenty old to have earned a basic graduate degree. In fact, I finished my first at 24. I'll disclose that now, at 35, I'm heading for another in a different field- now that my child is older, I can refocus on myself. But that's not so relevant, since I'm at least 10 years older than my classmates.

I'd be really surprised to hear that most DCUMs who waited past 29 to become parents did so because they were pursuing basic graduate degrees. They certainly might have been building their careers, but I would expect that they had completed their educations (MDs and PhDs excluded, of course) well before. Again, not judging, just insisting that level of education is not what sets us apart.

I guess the disagreement I'm having with 02:27 is that I'm suggesting her vast majority of her under-educated 25 year-olds won't be helped by delaying motherhood... don't most women who are going to earn graduate degrees do so before they leave their 20s? I guess statistics could resolve that debate, but at such a late hour, 2:27 (who probably had a newborn in her arms... yes?) didn't feel like Googling. For that matter, neither do I.

For whatever another anecdote is worth, which is not necessarily very much at all, I've grown miserably impatient with small children now that I've hit middle age. In my 20s, I enjoyed my own and everyone else's babies and toddlers. Now I only appreciate them in small doses and can't wait to return them to their parents when they become irritable. Humbug.

[Anonymous]

This is a strange discussion because when you come right down to it, what kind of parent you will be is mostly the result of what kind of person you are. If you are a thoughtful and patient person with love to give, you have the potential to be a good parent. If you're narcissistic, irrational, impatient, selfish, disengaged, then you won't be much of a parent. For people in each category, there are those who will get to their best 'mommy place' at 25, and those who will at 40.

I'm the product of a stay-at-home mother who was married at 19 and had children at 21 and 24. There's broad consensus among every one of my friends who've ever met her that she's the worst mother they've ever known. The thing is, at 60 she's still a borderline personality, still a narcissist, and she's possibly worse than when she was in her 20s because she's become more religiously fanatical as every year has gone by. She wasn't going to be a good mother whenever she had a child.

I think that I was right to have a child at 32 instead of younger. In my case, I had matured somewhat, and gotten furthr along in my career. Looking at my current self (37) versus my 32-year-old self, I'd probably be even better off starting now, but that ship has sailed and as it is, I do what I can.

The luckiest, happiest children have parents who know how to be parents. Just about no one is perfectly situated, ever. But we do our best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I guess the disagreement I'm having with 02:27 is that I'm suggesting her vast majority of her under-educated 25 year-olds won't be helped by delaying motherhood... don't most women who are going to earn graduate degrees do so before they leave their 20s? I guess statistics could resolve that debate, but at such a late hour, 2:27 (who probably had a newborn in her arms... yes?) didn't feel like Googling. For that matter, neither do I.

I'll help out. If you go down to figure 4 at the website below you'll see that the percentage of 25-34 year olds with a Bachelors degree or higher (in the US as a whole) is exactly the same (30%) as the percentage of 35-44 years olds with one. It's the 18-24 year old cohort with lower educational achievement, although that isn't surprising since they are mostly still in school.

http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2006/october/2.html