Parents of 4+ kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I always talked about having 4. I am 42 now and while I know that isn’t old in DC standards I am hesitant to have another. But I get wistful sometimes thinking our family isn’t complete.

Yes that IS old by DC standards. It's too damned old to have a baby, especially even you already have kids.

Stop it with your judgement. I'm the PP who had a first at 25 and tried to get a third in my 40s. I can afford it, and I have all my wits about me. People are more capable than you think.

You think this world with Anti Vaxers leading the way is a great place to bring a child?

Third in your 40's? So when that kid is 20 you are in your 60s fabulous parenting.

Having a kid is not only about money.

You are selfish.

Women have been having babies on their 40s for centuries.

Both my dad and his mother were born to women in their mid-40s. Before birth control this was incredibly common because women just had kids until they couldn't anymore. It's weird to suddenly decide it's selfish now?

+1,000

No, no one here is living like a 1920s SAHM. Back then people rarely even went to restaurants with their whole family, vacations were minimal or road trips, college wasn’t for most, there were no travel or organized sports beyond basic high school teams for most kids, no education supplementing needing to be done at home ever. People, especially UMC live very different lives now. Parenting well takes a is a lot more time, energy, and money than it ever did before. The expectations of kids are also vastly different.

What's weird about a 60 year old with a 20 year old adult child? Asking because we are living that right now and not seeing your issue?

[Anonymous]

I'll be 38 next month. I have 5: ages 12, 8, 7 and 21mo old twins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I always talked about having 4. I am 42 now and while I know that isn’t old in DC standards I am hesitant to have another. But I get wistful sometimes thinking our family isn’t complete.

Yes that IS old by DC standards. It's too damned old to have a baby, especially even you already have kids.

Stop it with your judgement. I'm the PP who had a first at 25 and tried to get a third in my 40s. I can afford it, and I have all my wits about me. People are more capable than you think.

You think this world with Anti Vaxers leading the way is a great place to bring a child?

Third in your 40's? So when that kid is 20 you are in your 60s fabulous parenting.

Having a kid is not only about money.

You are selfish.

Women have been having babies on their 40s for centuries.

Both my dad and his mother were born to women in their mid-40s. Before birth control this was incredibly common because women just had kids until they couldn't anymore. It's weird to suddenly decide it's selfish now?

+1,000

No, no one here is living like a 1920s SAHM. Back then people rarely even went to restaurants with their whole family, vacations were minimal or road trips, college wasn’t for most, there were no travel or organized sports beyond basic high school teams for most kids, no education supplementing needing to be done at home ever. People, especially UMC live very different lives now. Parenting well takes a is a lot more time, energy, and money than it ever did before. The expectations of kids are also vastly different.

What's weird about a 60 year old with a 20 year old adult child? Asking because we are living that right now and not seeing your issue?

It’s not necessarily the age, but number of kids. The OP asks about having 4+ kids. If you are over 40 and already have 3 kids- just stop. No one needs a 4th, 5th, 6th kid at 40+ You will not be as good of a parent to each child the more children you have and the older you are. If you have 1-2 kids at 40, no problem. You probably have plenty of money and attention to give.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of four kids, my youngest sibling born when my mom was 43. And that last baby did take a ton out of mom, she was on bedrest and really struggled with her health. I love my youngest sibling very very much, but it's not a choice I'd make for myself.

Also one of 4. My mom had number 4 at age 33. Other kids were 8, 6, and 3 at the time. She said going from 2 to 3 kids was the hardest, but 4 was inconvenient for cars and hotel rooms.

Op, just be sure you are ok with multiples, prematurity/complications, and special needs as the chances of each go up with age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I always talked about having 4. I am 42 now and while I know that isn’t old in DC standards I am hesitant to have another. But I get wistful sometimes thinking our family isn’t complete.

Yes that IS old by DC standards. It's too damned old to have a baby, especially even you already have kids.

Women have been having babies in their 40s for millenia. My grandmother had her first baby in 1941 when she was 25 and then proceeded to have 6 more children when she was 29, 31, 35 (twins), 39, and 43. My MIL had her first baby (after trying for several years) in 1955 when she was 32 and then had 3 more when she was 35, 38, and 42 (also 2 miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy in those years! Her last baby conceived with only 1 ovary).

[Anonymous]

Having a baby in your 40s is actually associated with longevity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll be 38 next month. I have 5: ages 12, 8, 7 and 21mo old twins.

Sick

[Anonymous]

Relatives:

27: other kids were 15 months, 3, and 4.

33: other kids were 2, 3, and 5.

39: other kids were 3, 3, 5, 7, 10

[Anonymous]

The hateful troll on this board is really funny. As if they're telling us anything we don't know about biology. I'm a research scientist in genetics. I still tried getting pregnant in my 40s, even though I know the medical risks to mother and child better than most. For my family it's worth it to try.

There is nothing selfish about getting pregnant if you want a child and know there's a very high chance the child will be well cared for. It doesn't matter at all that a child in their 20s might have at least one parent in their 60s or 70s. From both material and psychological points of view, there's a higher risk for the child if they're born of a young and poor mother at a time when she cannot adequately look after both of them, than there is for a child born to well-off parents who will take the time and effort to raise their child thoughtfully - not because one set of parents loves their kid more, but because money, knowledge and intentional parenting are crucial impact factors in the child's social, emotional and professional outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I always talked about having 4. I am 42 now and while I know that isn’t old in DC standards I am hesitant to have another. But I get wistful sometimes thinking our family isn’t complete.

Yes that IS old by DC standards. It's too damned old to have a baby, especially even you already have kids.

Stop it with your judgement. I'm the PP who had a first at 25 and tried to get a third in my 40s. I can afford it, and I have all my wits about me. People are more capable than you think.

You think this world with Anti Vaxers leading the way is a great place to bring a child?

Third in your 40's? So when that kid is 20 you are in your 60s fabulous parenting.

Having a kid is not only about money.

You are selfish.

Women have been having babies on their 40s for centuries.

Both my dad and his mother were born to women in their mid-40s. Before birth control this was incredibly common because women just had kids until they couldn't anymore. It's weird to suddenly decide it's selfish now?

+1,000

No, no one here is living like a 1920s SAHM. Back then people rarely even went to restaurants with their whole family, vacations were minimal or road trips, college wasn’t for most, there were no travel or organized sports beyond basic high school teams for most kids, no education supplementing needing to be done at home ever. People, especially UMC live very different lives now. Parenting well takes a is a lot more time, energy, and money than it ever did before. The expectations of kids are also vastly different.

What's weird about a 60 year old with a 20 year old adult child? Asking because we are living that right now and not seeing your issue?

It’s not necessarily the age, but number of kids. The OP asks about having 4+ kids. If you are over 40 and already have 3 kids- just stop. No one needs a 4th, 5th, 6th kid at 40+ You will not be as good of a parent to each child the more children you have and the older you are. If you have 1-2 kids at 40, no problem. You probably have plenty of money and attention to give.

How do you know what kind of parent other people can be? You cannot judge the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having a baby in your 40s is actually associated with longevity.

I think this is one of those correlation =/= causation things. Someone able to have a baby in their 40s is likely to be in better health to start with.

[Anonymous]

I thought we were in a dangerous underpopulation crisis and we all needed to have as many children as possible. Like Elon?

[Anonymous]

Im the 4th and my mom was 31 when i was born. She was 24 with my oldest sister. This was 40 years ago.

In modern life the few families I know with 4 kids had their last around 35. And they were generally spaced 2 to 3 years out so they started in late 20s.

This seems healthy if its your families choice. I am a little judgy about having a 4th in your 40s, because WHY?!?!? It's not needed and its generally risky for your health and i cant imagine makes your family life better. Seems pretty ignorant. If you know you want a large family, start young.

[Anonymous]

The number one thing I would consider is how this would impact the kids you already have. The older they are, the less inclined I would be to do this. No matter what, your attention will be focused on the baby. How will your kids do with that?

Second is what kind of support you have. Active local grandparents or other family who can help you and hopefully mitigate the above would be ideal.

Third is financial resources. No one has endless money but if you have a lot this certainly helps. Is your house big enough? Will your kids need to share bedrooms if you add a fourth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be 38 next month. I have 5: ages 12, 8, 7 and 21mo old twins.

Sick

What's so sick about this?