When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although I agree that an older parent has a great deal to offer, including, often, the peace of mind associated with havnig one's own accomplishments before throwing herself into a completely other-centered and hopefully selfless job, I'm really amused by the parts of the thread that deal with education levels.

I learned a ton about good parenting from my high school-educated nanny, who raised three wonderful, accomplished kids of her own, first of whom was born when my nanny was 17, before coming to us. We were her third nanny gig and she was a naturally great person with kids. Not just nurturing an infant, but coming up with interestng and educational activities, stimulating her, and helping me problem-solve. I imagine that many older, working mothers also enlist the help of a caregiver with far less educaiton than themselves. In my case, she taught me several things that law school could not.

The frustrating thing for many of us high achievers is that although our accomplishments make us feel good about ourselves and enrich us, they are by no means necessary for good parenting. I see so many people reading dozens of books and signing on to one psychologist or another's theory of how to handle a baby, but plenty of people do it on instinct, or with practice, or because their parents taught them well, or they helped with their siblings.

Mothering is the great equalizer. Young or old, rich or poor, college-educated or not, we all get a bald, toothless little poop machine who doesn't speak our language. We all wake up at 3am to get barfed on, and we all do the walk of shame out of the mall with a screaming two-year-old in a stroller, melting down, at least once in our lives. We all make tough choices about how to handle our responsibilities, and we all lose a part of our pre-child selves in order to give to another. We all gain a child in the process.

Peace, out.

Great post!

[Anonymous]

Yes, great post. I totally agree, especially with this part --

The frustrating thing for many of us high achievers is that although our accomplishments make us feel good about ourselves and enrich us, they are by no means necessary for good parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1 in 16, wow. That is unbelievable. This whole threads makes me so sad because I want a third child (I'm 40). The reason I got started so late is because of six lonely years of Infertility.

I'm just not sure if I can go through nine months of worrying if my third child would be healthy - not with those odds. And I already feel so lucky with two healthy children. I worry that I'm pushing my luck too much with a third.

Does anyone else feel this way?

The person who said the risk for Down's at age 43 was incorrect. The risk is 1/50 or 2%. It is 1/100 at age 40. It's not even 1/16 for women over the age of 45!

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The frustrating thing for many of us high achievers is that although our accomplishments make us feel good about ourselves and enrich us, they are by no means necessary for good parenting. I see so many people reading dozens of books and signing on to one psychologist or another's theory of how to handle a baby, but plenty of people do it on instinct, or with practice, or because their parents taught them well, or they helped with their siblings.

It isn't the subject matter of our degrees that educates us to become a better parent. I don't think anyone here on the board is saying that a law degree or PhD somehow taught us how to change diapers better, deal with a colicky baby, or know the best disciplining strategies. It's the fact that advanced degrees AND time spent in careers before having a child generally provide more financial stability and it is that financial stability that makes for good parenting. The advanced education just helps women to achieve the financial stability.

Some young women know how to take care of a baby, as you said, either through experience or instinct. But the peace and calm that come from financial stability is often seen in later years of a woman's age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 in 16, wow. That is unbelievable. This whole threads makes me so sad because I want a third child (I'm 40). The reason I got started so late is because of six lonely years of Infertility.

I'm just not sure if I can go through nine months of worrying if my third child would be healthy - not with those odds. And I already feel so lucky with two healthy children. I worry that I'm pushing my luck too much with a third.

Does anyone else feel this way?

The person who said the risk for Down's at age 43 was incorrect. The risk is 1/50 or 2%. It is 1/100 at age 40. It's not even 1/16 for women over the age of 45!

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

So if there is a 98% chance that a 43 year old woman could have a healthy baby, why shouldn't she and why wouldn't she? I say go for it.

[Anonymous]

It isn't the subject matter of our degrees that educates us to become a better parent. I don't think anyone here on the board is saying that a law degree or PhD somehow taught us how to change diapers better, deal with a colicky baby, or know the best disciplining strategies. It's the fact that advanced degrees AND time spent in careers before having a child generally provide more financial stability and it is that financial stability that makes for good parenting. The advanced education just helps women to achieve the financial stability.

Some young women know how to take care of a baby, as you said, either through experience or instinct. But the peace and calm that come from financial stability is often seen in later years of a woman's age.

Financial Stability Poster, just say what you really mean. You mean More Money, and you are arguing that more money can make you better equipped to be a parent. You don't mean mere Financial Stability. A 22-year-old kindergarten teacher could be financially stable enough to raise a child well if she lives within her means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't the subject matter of our degrees that educates us to become a better parent. I don't think anyone here on the board is saying that a law degree or PhD somehow taught us how to change diapers better, deal with a colicky baby, or know the best disciplining strategies. It's the fact that advanced degrees AND time spent in careers before having a child generally provide more financial stability and it is that financial stability that makes for good parenting. The advanced education just helps women to achieve the financial stability.

Some young women know how to take care of a baby, as you said, either through experience or instinct. But the peace and calm that come from financial stability is often seen in later years of a woman's age.

Financial Stability Poster, just say what you really mean. You mean More Money, and you are arguing that more money can make you better equipped to be a parent. You don't mean mere Financial Stability. A 22-year-old kindergarten teacher could be financially stable enough to raise a child well if she lives within her means.

Come on, PP. Financial Stability Poster (you've now been named!) makes a lot of sense. Security is very important when raising a family. I know of one person who was a success as a young mother b/c she lived within her means - got pregnant at 19, had 5 kids total, failed marriage, single parent, earned three degrees on her own, and is a teacher (one of the hardest jobs). But she's rare. No one's really knocking young mothers. We're only saying that as older mothers, society looks down on us - unfairly, I might add. And being older has its advantages - financial stability being one.

[Anonymous]

I still think you both are talking about "more money" and not just "financial stability." Can it be an advantage to be older because you have the chance to earn and save more money? Of course. But that's not the same as simple financial stability. One can have sufficient "financial stability" to raise a child well under many circumstances, at varying ages, and within the confines of the solid middle class. Just call it what it is and don't try to couch it under more diplomatic terms. You're saying being older gives you the chance to make more money and that makes one a better parent than someone with less money. I think that's a pretty provocative viewpoint.

And I will say again, I think people should have kids at whatever age works for them. I don't think there is anything wrong with waiting until you're 40 to have a baby. More power to you! Just don't try to argue that's the better choice, which I believe Financial Stability Poster is doing even if she will try to claim otherwise. It's not a better choice. It's a fine choice, it's not a worse choice, but neither is it better.

[Anonymous]

Not the first to point this out in this thread, but can we get a little middle ground, please? It's not either 19 or 45. Many people have children in their early thirties after several years of working. For example, I know many mothers who have recently had children after 6 or so years of law practice. They are financially stable AND still fairly young. So, it can't be that you have to be in your 40s to be financially stable, and, the comparison should not always be with unwed 19 year olds with little chance of financial sucess. I think people would feel less judgmental of you if they understood better why your 30s was not an appropriate time for you to have children, seeing as how many women are able to establish a career by this point in their lives. My guess is that the answers vary a lot, but I doubt that it takes most women 20 years post-college to become financially prepared to support a child, especially if you have a spouse who works. Anyway, please stop creating this 45 with 3 degrees vs. 19 and homeless dischotomy. The fact is that many women have kids b/t 30 and 35.

[Anonymous]

Again with the 19 year-old mothers and the particular financial challenges they face being confused with the moderate financial challenges faced by educated, married women in their later 20s! True, I wouldn't mind the "peace" that would probably follow from having an income dramatically exceeding my family's needs, but I don't think Ms. "Financial Stability" is correct in insisting that it is particularly beneficial to one's children to wait until that exalted point, which apparently hits around the age of 40. As 20:44 said, this isn't really about "stability," which can be achieved much, much earlier.

I'm also not really sure who's looking down on older mothers. A glance around my kid's NWDC school at drop-off time suggests to me that you all own this place. If any of you so urgently need a reason to feel superior, you're welcome to point to your relatively luxuriant household incomes. Just don't assume that you're necessarily better educated.

[Anonymous]

All the financial stability stuff aside....what if you just didn't meet your husband until you were 40? Have a child when you are ready, and the heck with the rest of the planet. I would never begrudge anyone the happy family they want.

[Anonymous]

Sounds fine to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again with the 19 year-old mothers and the particular financial challenges they face being confused with the moderate financial challenges faced by educated, married women in their later 20s! True, I wouldn't mind the "peace" that would probably follow from having an income dramatically exceeding my family's needs, but I don't think Ms. "Financial Stability" is correct in insisting that it is particularly beneficial to one's children to wait until that exalted point, which apparently hits around the age of 40. As 20:44 said, this isn't really about "stability," which can be achieved much, much earlier.

I'm also not really sure who's looking down on older mothers. A glance around my kid's NWDC school at drop-off time suggests to me that you all own this place. If any of you so urgently need a reason to feel superior, you're welcome to point to your relatively luxuriant household incomes. Just don't assume that you're necessarily better educated.

This is Ms. Financial Stability here. LOL Did I really say that women should wait until the "exalted point of turning 40 to have children"??? I don't think I said that women should wait until their 40s. I had my own child in my mid 30's so I'm not sure why I would have said to wait until the 40's. But I'm trying for my 2nd at 41 now and I sensed a lack of support among some of the women who have responded on this subject. I am assuming the lack of support is coming from women who had their own children early. So I argued that having a child around 40 has monumental advantages. I wasn't arguing that every woman should wait until she's 40 to get pregnant, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the first to point this out in this thread, but can we get a little middle ground, please? It's not either 19 or 45. Many people have children in their early thirties after several years of working. For example, I know many mothers who have recently had children after 6 or so years of law practice. They are financially stable AND still fairly young. So, it can't be that you have to be in your 40s to be financially stable, and, the comparison should not always be with unwed 19 year olds with little chance of financial sucess. I think people would feel less judgmental of you if they understood better why your 30s was not an appropriate time for you to have children, seeing as how many women are able to establish a career by this point in their lives. My guess is that the answers vary a lot, but I doubt that it takes most women 20 years post-college to become financially prepared to support a child, especially if you have a spouse who works. Anyway, please stop creating this 45 with 3 degrees vs. 19 and homeless dischotomy. The fact is that many women have kids b/t 30 and 35.

Financial Stability here. The subject of the post was whether 40 is too late to have kids. I think alot of older women sensed a lack of support from some here in their own decision to go ahead and have kids at 40+. So they all pointed out the distinct advantages of having children at 40+ that aren't commonly seen when women are younger.

Sure, there are some highly educated women in their 30's who may be earning a strong income. But the advantage of women who are 40+ is that not only do more of them have a stronger education, they, more importantly, have had more time to accumulate MONEY (I'm being blunt and not cushioning my words diplomatically as one other poster asked me to do LOL). This brings them peace of mind, and it also allows them to quit their jobs if they desire to focus solely on raising their child as a SAHM. It has many advantages. The older moms also have more relationship stability.

This isn't to say 30+ moms are clueless, unproductive, or unable to raise children properly. This is to not deny advantages the 40+ moms have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the first to point this out in this thread, but can we get a little middle ground, please? It's not either 19 or 45. Many people have children in their early thirties after several years of working. For example, I know many mothers who have recently had children after 6 or so years of law practice. They are financially stable AND still fairly young. So, it can't be that you have to be in your 40s to be financially stable, and, the comparison should not always be with unwed 19 year olds with little chance of financial sucess. I think people would feel less judgmental of you if they understood better why your 30s was not an appropriate time for you to have children, seeing as how many women are able to establish a career by this point in their lives. My guess is that the answers vary a lot, but I doubt that it takes most women 20 years post-college to become financially prepared to support a child, especially if you have a spouse who works. Anyway, please stop creating this 45 with 3 degrees vs. 19 and homeless dischotomy. The fact is that many women have kids b/t 30 and 35.

Financial Stability here. The subject of the post was whether 40 is too late to have kids. I think alot of older women sensed a lack of support from some here in their own decision to go ahead and have kids at 40+. So they all pointed out the distinct advantages of having children at 40+ that aren't commonly seen when women are younger.

Sure, there are some highly educated women in their 30's who may be earning a strong income. But the advantage of women who are 40+ is that not only do more of them have a stronger education, they, more importantly, have had more time to accumulate MONEY (I'm being blunt and not cushioning my words diplomatically as one other poster asked me to do LOL). This brings them peace of mind, and it also allows them to quit their jobs if they desire to focus solely on raising their child as a SAHM. It has many advantages. The older moms also have more relationship stability.

This isn't to say 30+ moms are clueless, unproductive, or unable to raise children properly. This is to not deny advantages the 40+ moms have.

Will all of you people just stop! Just because you have a nice little nest egg or more education doesn't mean that you are going to be a better mother! Being a mother is something that you learn while raising your kid. "Financial Stability" or whatever you want to call yourself, I have a better name for you...how about "Self Righteous" Get off your high horse and come on back down to reality. Most of our mothers and grandmothers had their babies at a very young age and I am pretty damn sure that we all turned out just fine. My mother is my hero, she taught me patience, love, respect and trust....something I am currently teaching my son...and something that I don't need a college degree to instill in him. Everyone who is saying that women in their 40's with more money and more education will be better mothers, make me sick! Sounds like you need to grow up to me.