42-43 too old for a baby?

[Anonymous]

I had my third at 43. It’s not for everyone, but I had easy pregnancies and he was my easiest baby. I do think babies keep you young. My older sister is only two years older than me but her kids are in college. She watched my two youngest for three hours and then had to take a nap. I have no problem keeping up with them, but she just doesn’t have to be on like that anymore so she can’t just kick it on when she needs to. She is physically in good shape, but she seems way older than me in some ways.

[Anonymous]

I'm your same age and also have three children. I wouldn't want another baby now even though at one point, I thought I wanted four children. I love having elementary and middle school-age children and the activities we can do together as a family now such as hiking, kayaking, and skiing. I'd also worry about the possibility of having a special needs child and not having the bandwidth to manage it all.

If I didn't have any children, that's another story. I think I would want to try.

[Anonymous]

I had a surprise second baby at nearly 42. We dealt with years of infertility before having DD#1 via IVF, then suffered further infertility and loss for several years before giving up when I turned 40. I would not have planned a pregnancy over 40 (and certainly not for a 4th child), but it was fine. Very easy pregnancy, easy vaginal delivery, baby is nearly a year old and perfectly healthy. Of course, there are lots of scary stories of complications with pregnancy over 40, but my experience was very positive.
She's a much easier baby than our older DD was, so that's helped tremendously, since I don't function well without a good night's sleep and there's been absolutely no help this time around due to the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely not for me I couldn't handle it. We have three and it's perfect for us. One more would tip us over the edge. Also, I can't imagine being 45 and chasing a 2yo.

[Anonymous]

My non ttc surprise arrived a couple of weeks before my 45th birthday. It’s been great and it sure keeps you young! GL

[Anonymous]

No. My friend just had a baby at 43. She was born 12 weeks early and will most likely have significant special needs.

[Anonymous]

I had my last at 43. She is lovely and the whole family enjoys having her. My son - who was the youngest before her and was 5 when she was born, particularly loves her and they get along great. Sometimes I look around at my friends who are my age and whose kids are going off to college and going on amazing holidays and thing wouldn't that be nice? But in general I'm happy I did it.

[Anonymous]

PP above - I was also really clear with myself and my husband that if there were any signs of trouble during the pregnancy (high NT, any other warning signs) we would terminate.

[Anonymous]

No way for me. I'm 46 and my DD is now 15. I couldn't imagine having a teenager and having to deal with a 2-3 yr old at this age.

[Anonymous]

OP, only you know the answer. I just turned 42 yesterday and the thought of having an infant in the next year or so makes me want to vomit. I honestly can't imagine anything worse. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No way for me. I'm 46 and my DD is now 15. I couldn't imagine having a teenager and having to deal with a 2-3 yr old at this age.

I think this is key.
I would have loved a baby at 42/43 but now I'm 46 and I'm feeling much older and also protective of my time and space. There's no way I'd want a preschooler (as awesome as they are--- I loved being a mom to young kids).

There's a shift that goes on mid-40's. Early 40's might as well be mid-30's. By 46/47 everyone I know started to feel their age. My friends and I talk about this all the time.

[Anonymous]

Ladies, here is my comment: Having a baby at 43 or even 45 is nothing.

It's having a 10-year-old at 53 or 55 that will do you in.

Ask me how I know.

[Anonymous]

No way.

Continuing to have more kids at an advanced agr, especially when you already have several is just selfish and perhaps pathological.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No way for me. I'm 46 and my DD is now 15. I couldn't imagine having a teenager and having to deal with a 2-3 yr old at this age.

I think this is key.
I would have loved a baby at 42/43 but now I'm 46 and I'm feeling much older and also protective of my time and space. There's no way I'd want a preschooler (as awesome as they are--- I loved being a mom to young kids).

There's a shift that goes on mid-40's. Early 40's might as well be mid-30's. By 46/47 everyone I know started to feel their age. My friends and I talk about this all the time.

7:46 here. I would've considered it at 41 and 42 but not anytime after that. A lot has gone downhill in the last few years. My cholesterol is high (it runs in the family) and my thyroid is out of whack. It was WNL up to age 42 or so. I am a normal weight but I would imagine the baby weight would never go away if I had a baby now. The metabolism is much slower now. Now I really have to watch what I eat. Plus a teenager is just as exhausting as a toddler but in a different way. Nope. I am counting the days until my kiddo heads to college.

[Anonymous]

No way. Same age, also have three kids. They are a handful enough and I’m happy the baby and little kid ages are behind me!