Honestly: is 41 too old to have a baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely too old. I really wish this trend of 40+ Moms would go away.

This "trend," as you call it, has been around for a while. Ever wondered why families of earlier times had such gigantic families? Having 8 -12 children entailed a woman beginning birthing in her teens all through menopause. A few of those babies might survive to adulthood.

A baby at 40 is not a big deal. Had my 3rd (natural pregnancy, no complications) at 42. At home. (Gasp)

Sick of all of the judgmental folks on this board. You give the DC area a bad name. Seriously. Get over it.

I have been doing a lot of genealogical research lately (mostly late 1700's and early 1800's). I was not surprised to see the large families (8-12 kids), but I was surprised to see how often children were born when the woman was in her 40s -- sometimes 2 or 3 kids after 40! It definitely changed my understanding of fertility in a woman's later years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I started responding and then noticed that original post was from February. So, thought I'll just check with OP: what did you decide eventually? Did you decide to go ahead with it?

In any case, I think 41 is not too old - especially for a second child. I would not advise anyone to wait until 41 to start trying for a first, but if this is how circumstances ended, nothing wrong with trying at 41.

Please update - would be great to hear that you are expecting

OP here. Got pregnant at 40 and 364 days, then miscarried at 10 weeks. In 2WW at the moment. I'm PETRIFIED, but you only live once and I want a second child

[Anonymous]

Sorry about your m/c OP. Hope all is going well! I'm 39 and getting ready to have my 2nd, with plans for a 3rd in a few years, and not ruling out a 4th. My mom had me at 40 in 1974, and I turned out perfectly normal.

[Anonymous]

no!! 41 is young! try! good luck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:no!! 41 is young! try! good luck

+10000. i turned 39 the day my son was born. Happy as a clam. No. 41 is not old. However, take good care of your health from now on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is way too old. You have a greater risk of having a Down Syndrome's baby. My dad was 42 when we were born. It was gross having an older dad than everyone else. Too, it is selfish. You won't be around for your grandkids. Why not adopt a child who needs parents and is already here?

The dumbest post ever

no - THIS is the dumbest post ever:

This seems to be the thread that never dies. If you get pregnant at 41 and the baby born at 42, it really, really helps to have excellent health. I think it works better if you are either rich or poor. If you are poor, you can always put the kid to work helping around the house and keeping you company as you age. Not so great for the kid, but oh well. If you are rich, someone else can do the heavy lifting. For a middle class person, saving for college and retirement at the same time can be difficult. Right now for someone in their 40s, college is looking like $1M, and retirement like $2M. That is a lot of saving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is way too old. You have a greater risk of having a Down Syndrome's baby. My dad was 42 when we were born. It was gross having an older dad than everyone else. Too, it is selfish. You won't be around for your grandkids. Why not adopt a child who needs parents and is already here?

The dumbest post ever

no - THIS is the dumbest post ever:

This seems to be the thread that never dies. If you get pregnant at 41 and the baby born at 42, it really, really helps to have excellent health. I think it works better if you are either rich or poor. If you are poor, you can always put the kid to work helping around the house and keeping you company as you age. Not so great for the kid, but oh well. If you are rich, someone else can do the heavy lifting. For a middle class person, saving for college and retirement at the same time can be difficult. Right now for someone in their 40s, college is looking like $1M, and retirement like $2M. That is a lot of saving.

funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is way too old. You have a greater risk of having a Down Syndrome's baby. My dad was 42 when we were born. It was gross having an older dad than everyone else. Too, it is selfish. You won't be around for your grandkids. Why not adopt a child who needs parents and is already here?

The dumbest post ever

no - THIS is the dumbest post ever:

This seems to be the thread that never dies. If you get pregnant at 41 and the baby born at 42, it really, really helps to have excellent health. I think it works better if you are either rich or poor. If you are poor, you can always put the kid to work helping around the house and keeping you company as you age. Not so great for the kid, but oh well. If you are rich, someone else can do the heavy lifting. For a middle class person, saving for college and retirement at the same time can be difficult. Right now for someone in their 40s, college is looking like $1M, and retirement like $2M. That is a lot of saving.

Hit a nerve did it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely too old. I really wish this trend of 40+ Moms would go away.

This "trend," as you call it, has been around for a while. Ever wondered why families of earlier times had such gigantic families? Having 8 -12 children entailed a woman beginning birthing in her teens all through menopause. A few of those babies might survive to adulthood.

A baby at 40 is not a big deal. Had my 3rd (natural pregnancy, no complications) at 42. At home. (Gasp)

Sick of all of the judgmental folks on this board. You give the DC area a bad name. Seriously. Get over it.

I have been doing a lot of genealogical research lately (mostly late 1700's and early 1800's). I was not surprised to see the large families (8-12 kids), but I was surprised to see how often children were born when the woman was in her 40s -- sometimes 2 or 3 kids after 40! It definitely changed my understanding of fertility in a woman's later years.

Yep. My grandmother had her youngest in 1957, at age 40. My MIL had her youngest in 1965, at age 42. Trendsetters, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I started responding and then noticed that original post was from February. So, thought I'll just check with OP: what did you decide eventually? Did you decide to go ahead with it?

In any case, I think 41 is not too old - especially for a second child. I would not advise anyone to wait until 41 to start trying for a first, but if this is how circumstances ended, nothing wrong with trying at 41.

Please update - would be great to hear that you are expecting

OP here. Got pregnant at 40 and 364 days, then miscarried at 10 weeks. In 2WW at the moment. I'm PETRIFIED, but you only live once and I want a second child

How are you OP!?

[Anonymous]

I was three months shy of 44 when I had my child. No major complication he does have some sensory and speech apraxia but that is more prevalent these days. Definitely genetic but I don't believe it is fertility related. I have seen worse issues from younger parents as well.

[Anonymous]

was your son a preemie by any chance?

[Anonymous]

If you only have 1, definitely try. I had my first at 41. I wish I had quickly had a second. He is wonderful, but I really think only children are more work. And he would have loved a sibling.

[Anonymous]

I (OP) am now 41 and 5 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I (OP) am now 41 and 5 months.

Have you decided to ttc?